In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of “one people.” The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, “We the people…”

And who were these “people”?

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as “one united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…”

If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Federalist No. 2 celebrated our unity. Today’s elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?

After the attempted massacre of Republican Congressmen at that ball field in Alexandria, Fareed Zakaria wrote: “The political polarization that is ripping this country apart” is about “identity … gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation (and) social class.” He might have added — religion, morality, culture and history.

Zakaria seems to be tracing the disintegration of our society to that very diversity that its elites proclaim to be its greatest attribute: “If the core issues are about identity, culture and religion … then compromise seems immoral. American politics is becoming more like Middle Eastern politics, where there is no middle ground between being Sunni or Shiite.”

Among the issues on which we Americans are at war with one another — abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, white cops, black crime, Confederate monuments, LGBT rights, affirmative action.

Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind’s most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?

In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance many of us recited daily at the end of noon recess in the schoolyard was amended to read, “one nation, under God, indivisible.”

Are we still one nation under God? At the Democratic Convention in Charlotte to renominate Barack Obama, a motion to put “God” back into the platform was hooted and booed by half the assembly.

With this July 4 long weekend, many writers have bewailed the animus Americans exhibit toward one another and urged new efforts to reunite us. Yet, recall again those first words of Jefferson in 1776:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them…”

ORDER IT NOW

Are we approaching such a point? Could the Constitution, as currently interpreted, win the approval of two-thirds of our citizens and three-fourth of our states, if it were not already the supreme law of the land? How would a national referendum on the Constitution turn out, when many Americans are already seeking a new constitutional convention?

All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation? French writer Ernest Renan gave us the answer in the 19th century:

“A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things … constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.

“Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate: our ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past with great men and glory … is the social capital upon which the national idea rests. These are the essential conditions of being a people: having common glories in the past and a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them again.”

Does this sound at all like us today?

Watching our Lilliputians tearing down statues and monuments, renaming buildings and streets, rewriting history books to replace heroes and historical truths with the doings of ciphers, are we disassembling the nation we once were?

“One loves in proportion to the sacrifices that one has committed and the troubles that one has suffered,” writes Renan, “One loves the house that one has built and that one passes on.”

Are we passing on the house we inherited — or observing its demolition?

Happy Fourth. And God bless the USA.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

US may be divided but it seems to be uniting under Homomania or Queertianity, the neoligion funded and promoted by Jews.

Now, even Catholics support ‘gay marriage’ by a super-majority. Yes, even Catholics believe venerable bio-moral institution of marriage should be conflated with homo fecal penetration and tranny genital mutilation.

And even Trump justified his ‘Muslim Ban’ on protecting homos in night clubs grinding their asses.

So, divided as the nation is, most seem united on the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos.

Everyone is for Israel, which should be called Sodomia as it is big on homo degeneracy.
Everyone is for Magic Negroes. Everyone worships MLK and lionizes black athletes and rappers. And one thing Dems and Repubs are agreed on is that ‘racism’ is the worst thing, and of course ‘racism’ only has meaning in relation to blacks. After all, Trump could get away with bashing Mexicans, Muslims, Iranians, and Chinese.
And now, everyone is for the holy homo. Where is the opposition to homos? GOP knows that Jews are behind homos, and since GOP worships Jews, it cannot effectively oppose the homo agenda.

Now, US-UK-France-Germany-Ireland-etc have ‘gay marriage’. Even conservatives rarely denounce this rot. Indeed, the opposition was totally silent as the cancer of homo agenda spread through the US.

And where was the resistance to tearing down Confederate monuments? Trump said nothing. GOP did nothing. History was erased while this nation elevates gangster rappers, globalist imperialists, and homo degenerates.

(Given many northern generals were involved in ‘genocide’ of Indians, I suppose their monuments should come down too.)

There is no real divide in the US. Indeed, Trump won whereas Buchanan’s presidential run went nowhere because, whereas Buchanan stood for real moral principles, Trump was all about bluster and style. He wasn’t really for any moral position. And that’s why he was appealing to many Americans who are immoral or amoral. Even many Trump voters are into ‘gay marriage’ and that nonsense.

This is a degenerate nation.

Anyway, the reason why the nation seems divided is because Jews control the media. And they hate Trump and what he stands for: a nascent awakening of gentile majority consciousness.
So, they’ve been hyping all this craziness.
If not for Jewish control of media and its endless hysteria about Trumpenfuhrer, most of the furor would have died down by now.

In 3 decades or less than that this Jewish tribe came to dominate both the European who once had organized the pogrom and made Holocaust possible. The tribe came to dominate USA – Canada-Australia who did not persecute them but who were religiously made out of same cloth that had persecuted the tribe for years . How did they do it?

There is precedence to this development. After the temple was razed in 1is AD by Romans, the tribe secured the right of not paying religious services to Roman emperors as Gods , not making any offerings and keep the tribal rituals. Not only that despite close similarity and common linkage to Christianity , this tribe managed to portray Christianity as religion of atheism in the eyes of Rome. The tribes slept with the top notch Roman in military and administration, intermarried and few of them even were queens. The tribes kept on piling up pressure ( modern day Islamophobia created by same tribe ) against Christian. They even blamed Pilate for the devastation when it was the tribe who instigated and pressurized the romans to go after Jesus .

The tribes brought diversity and poor immigrants and rootless unassimilated to the empire and created fissures . Constantine was forced to address it because it was threatening the existence of the empire.

It seems America has to impose some universal values to transcend the deepening schism and protect itself from destruction.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Yeah, and someone named Khizr Khan, a Pakistani Islamist-supremacist who, as a lawyer, has written articles defending Sharia law, was _invited_ by the Clinton campaign to speak at the Democratic convention, where the Islamist proceeded to lecture Trump on the U.S. Constitution, and wagging his finger declared....."Mr. Trump, this is not your America....." (or words that effect), to a wild applause of brainwashed 1,000s in the audience.

"Soon after Trump’s inauguration, FDD’s CEO, Mark Dubowitz, submitted a seven-page Iran policy memo to Trump’s National Security Council. The memo — which was circulated inside the Trump White House and recently obtained by POLITICO — included a discussion of ways to foment popular unrest with the goal of establishing a “free and democratic” Iran. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/trump-iran-foreign-policy-regime-change-239930

Dubowitz ( Background- He also served as director of international business development for DoubleClick, later acquired by Internet giant Google.

Business, investment and the law are major milestones in Dubowitz's life journey. He was born in Johannesburg and grew up in Canada, completing his law degree in Toronto and graduating with honors with a master’s in international public policy from Johns Hopkins University. On top of that, he also studied in Jerusalem's Hebrew University and in Paris0

utilizes any available means. For example, he may arrive at a meeting in Canada's Prime Minister Office, and on the way there stop by a local TV studio and bluntly urge Ottawa to shift from talk to action.

One is amazed to discover that the US, a superpower boasting 16 intelligence agencies, nonetheless relies on the information and ideas of a man who heads an independent organization

A senior aide in an important Congressional committee told Ynet that "nobody in this town dedicates so much time and effort to one issue. Mark and his research team do an excellent job. If we have a question, they are the first ones we turn to." They come to us with information and with ideas. In order to pass legislation on the matter, we need good ideas," he said

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4060499,00.html

So who ass the hole this guy is directing American policy with ideas and access to pwoer/media PM 's office Oval Office because he developed some passion in Israel being born in S Africa?

We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another happiness over the fraud. And as for God blessing the USA, I’d suggest he damn and abolish what it’s become, i.e., a bankrupt, money grubbing, thrill seeking, doped up, dumbed down, hypocritical, military-corporate protection and extortion racket.

As a Catholic, Mr B ought to go read his Bible, particularly the parts where G-d himself is fed up with nations. Why he would feel that way should be pretty obvious by now.

Diversity has destroyed Western Europe (too late for a recovery) … and diversity is destroying us as well. Diversity and feminism (to include legalized abortion) have perhaps had a more negative impact on Western Civilization than a nuclear lay down during the Cold War.

We once sought to protect our survival by tracking down Communists and their fellow travelers within our midst. What has changed? In a historic turnabout, we have now given the feminists and sexual deviants hiding behind Cultural Marxist ideology a legally protected status and (under the Marxist aphorism that personal choice defines one’s culture, gender, and sex) are inviting massive immigration from the hell-holes populating the Third and Fourth Worlds … people who do not share our history, language, culture, religion, political system, and social values and never will.

US may be divided but it seems to be uniting under Homomania or Queertianity, the neoligion funded and promoted by Jews.

Now, even Catholics support 'gay marriage' by a super-majority. Yes, even Catholics believe venerable bio-moral institution of marriage should be conflated with homo fecal penetration and tranny genital mutilation.

And even Trump justified his 'Muslim Ban' on protecting homos in night clubs grinding their asses.

So, divided as the nation is, most seem united on the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos.

Everyone is for Israel, which should be called Sodomia as it is big on homo degeneracy. Everyone is for Magic Negroes. Everyone worships MLK and lionizes black athletes and rappers. And one thing Dems and Repubs are agreed on is that 'racism' is the worst thing, and of course 'racism' only has meaning in relation to blacks. After all, Trump could get away with bashing Mexicans, Muslims, Iranians, and Chinese. And now, everyone is for the holy homo. Where is the opposition to homos? GOP knows that Jews are behind homos, and since GOP worships Jews, it cannot effectively oppose the homo agenda.

Now, US-UK-France-Germany-Ireland-etc have 'gay marriage'. Even conservatives rarely denounce this rot. Indeed, the opposition was totally silent as the cancer of homo agenda spread through the US.

And where was the resistance to tearing down Confederate monuments? Trump said nothing. GOP did nothing. History was erased while this nation elevates gangster rappers, globalist imperialists, and homo degenerates.

(Given many northern generals were involved in 'genocide' of Indians, I suppose their monuments should come down too.)

There is no real divide in the US. Indeed, Trump won whereas Buchanan's presidential run went nowhere because, whereas Buchanan stood for real moral principles, Trump was all about bluster and style. He wasn't really for any moral position. And that's why he was appealing to many Americans who are immoral or amoral. Even many Trump voters are into 'gay marriage' and that nonsense.

This is a degenerate nation.

Anyway, the reason why the nation seems divided is because Jews control the media. And they hate Trump and what he stands for: a nascent awakening of gentile majority consciousness. So, they've been hyping all this craziness.If not for Jewish control of media and its endless hysteria about Trumpenfuhrer, most of the furor would have died down by now.

An interesting screed, and it could have come from a fiery Iranian Mullah.

We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another happiness over the fraud. And as for God blessing the USA, I'd suggest he damn and abolish what it's become, i.e., a bankrupt, money grubbing, thrill seeking, doped up, dumbed down, hypocritical, military-corporate protection and extortion racket.

As a Catholic, Mr B ought to go read his Bible, particularly the parts where G-d himself is fed up with nations. Why he would feel that way should be pretty obvious by now.

Isn’t the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?

"Isn’t the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?"

So are you and your family, with you being a lawyer and your wife a school teacher. Now are you ready to get rid of all of your technological gadgets and live strictly in accord with the beliefs AND lifestyle of Orthodoxy?

“In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of “one people.” The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, “We the people…” And who were these “people”? In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as “one united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” **If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?**

**YES

It would appear that Mr. Buchanan is making an argument our Founding Fathers established a British enthnostate, but IF (and I say IF) he is taking this position, similar to Vox Day, then he is totally wrong. Preserving rights “for one’s posterity” was legal repudiation of feudalism, which stated liberties were a grant from a monarch and the State, and reverted upon his/her death. That is, fundamental freedoms were NOT passed to future generations. The Declaration and the Federalist Papers in particular destroys that feudalist notion. More importantly, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, as a component of our Constitution and reflects original intent, granted Congress and NOT the States the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization. By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and the liberties related to it, to an “outsider”.

So, the drafters of our Constitution and the adopting state s fully comprehended the new Congress would have to power to receive immigrants and set forth the standards under which they are naturalized. Citizenship therefore is NOT exclusively confined to the British. This means this argument that the franchise of citizenship is meant to be confined solely to the British children of rebel British subjects is not reflected in the clear meaning of the document. Since immigration was allowed to the United States, at first to Europeans but later extended to non-Europeans, the “posterity” includes more than the actual descendants of residents of our great nation at that time.

But, but, but “[the Constitution] did allow for the possibility of change. But change, by definition, is not the previous state. And the original purpose of the Constitution cannot change, obviously.” Well, a contract, which essentially is what is our Constitution, that has an amendment process is NOT meant to remain constant. It has no original purpose but to establish exactly what the Preamble states. Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People as a whole. While this population was primarily of British descent, the Dutch, Germans, Irish, Scots, French, Africans, and Native Americans ALL fought to remove the shackles of tyranny from Great Britain.

Posterity is synonymous with “legacy”–what we leave behind. Indeed, few, if any, had imagined when the Constitution was created that anyone BUT a white European had the intellectual capacity to embrace Republican principles of government…YET the criterion of commitment to those ideas is NOT itself racial or ethnic specific. Of course, that does NOT mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, and it is legitimate, although in my opinion unreasonable, to doubt that non-white groups are equal to the task to embrace such principles. Of course, in the past foreigners have ben excluded on racial and religious grounds.

Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People as a whole. While this population was primarily of British descent, the Dutch, Germans, Irish, Scots, French, Africans, and Native Americans ALL fought to remove the shackles of tyranny from Great Britain.

Posterity does indeed refer only to the progeny of the founding white racial stocks and no one else. Most blacks were slaves and the ones who were free didn't qualify for citizenship. Jefferson referred to Indians as "merciless savages", a sentiment shared by virtually all of the founders by first hand experience - not blind bigotry. Most Indians supported and fought for the British crown.

The naturalization act of 1790 only bestowed citizenship to "free, white persons of good moral character". Not all whites living in the colonies were free.

YET the criterion of commitment to those ideas is NOT itself racial or ethnic specific.

Re-read John Jay's address. It does indeed imply a racial and ethnic component to America's founding and the type of government the English settlers formed. There is nothing universal or racially ambiguous about it.

although in my opinion unreasonable, to doubt that non-white groups are equal to the task to embrace such principles.

The evidence is in and they aren't up to the task. Non-white political pressure groups continually denounce America's founding and our form of government as racist, sexist, xenophobic, ad nauseum which perpetuates so called white privilege. Super majorities support the left wing thugs, demagogues and anti-white bigots of the Democrat party. Yeah, they're really up to the task alright.

Barack Hussein Obama was our first non-white president. His disregard for checks and balances, disdain for our history, willingness to act unilaterally in violation of the Constitution and the lawlessness of his administration far outdid Bill Clinton's. He acted more like Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin or your run of the mill African potentate than George Washington.

You'd make a great SCOTUS justice since you see things in the founders writings that simply aren't there or distorts their original intent to fit the SJW worldview.

“As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People.

“Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant.

“The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing.”

So, everyone on this fine blog, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.

Happy 4th Of July!

Tom Kratman, a science fiction writer, took Vox Day to task on this matter.

“All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation?”

Aelius Aristides, a Greek who received Roman citizenship in 123 A.D. stated…

You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire…everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. Neither the sea nor the great expanse of intervening land keeps one from being a citizen, and there is no distinction between Europe and Asia…No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust. Rather, there is here a common “world democracy” under the rule of one man, the best ruler and director…You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans…and because you have divided people in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with you, no less than the share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens have not even seen this city [Rome]! There is no need for troops to garrison the strategic high points of these cities, because the most important and powerful people in each region guard their native lands for you…yet there is not a residue of resentment among those excluded [from Roman citizenship and a share in the governance of the provinces]. Because your government is both universal and like that of a single city-state, its governors rightly rule not as foreigners but, as it were, their own people…Additionally, all of the masses of subjects under this government have protection against the more powerful of their native countrymen, by virtue of your anger and vengeance, which would fall upon the more powerful without delay should they dare to break the law. Thus, the present government serves rich and poor alike, and your constitution has developed a single, harmonious, all-embracing union. What in former days seemed impossible has in your time come to pass: You control a vast empire with a rule that is firm but not unkind…”

Ultimately, the American identity has not been lost within the past 60 years, it just has transformed, similar to when the Thirteen Colonies began as primarily British, but subsumed other European groups who were historic rivals, and eventually non-Europeans. The Welsh, the Cornish, Bavarians, the Catalans–they were distinct sub-Europeans groups, but over generations they intermingled and dispersed in our great land. Americans are a mixture of European and non-European ethnostates who, like any and all groups, self-identify. They know who they are and where they come from, and create groups who share their self-identities. Furthermore, the default for American is American and not a particular race, regardless of one’s willingness to admit it this decided fact. When you call yourself a black American or a Chinese American, you are still an American, as in residing in the nation referred as the United States. And while Yankees and Southerners and Midwesterners are clearly different, they are not separate “tribes” or “nations”, just locations with groups of people who self-identify geographically, socially, and culturally.

This identification is the direct result of indoctrination…from our Founding Fathers.

A big part of the problem in America (and the rest of the west) is that someone named "Fareed Zakaria" is not only living in America, but earning a living commenting upon it.

Yeah, and someone named Khizr Khan, a Pakistani Islamist-supremacist who, as a lawyer, has written articles defending Sharia law, was _invited_ by the Clinton campaign to speak at the Democratic convention, where the Islamist proceeded to lecture Trump on the U.S. Constitution, and wagging his finger declared…..”Mr. Trump, this is not your America…..” (or words that effect), to a wild applause of brainwashed 1,000s in the audience.

Isn't the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?

“Isn’t the Church doubling down on modernity, social democracy, and multiculturalism?”

So are you and your family, with you being a lawyer and your wife a school teacher. Now are you ready to get rid of all of your technological gadgets and live strictly in accord with the beliefs AND lifestyle of Orthodoxy?

I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then and if fact we’re starting to see things slowly escalate to threats, fisticuffs and even a few shootings.

So no, we are not one nation and never will be again. Moreover, white people in America are no longer one people. On one side you have the racial self loathing, neo-Bolshevik, Bernie Sanders worshipping freaks like Reality Winner, James Hodgkinson and their sympathizers and enablers while on the other you have the basket of deplorables, or whites who don’t want to become a minority and who despise political correctness, SJW’s and the radical leftism that’s eating away at our institutions like a cancer.

Economic prosperity, school vouchers, tax cuts, more minority set asides, single payer health care and syrupy rhetoric about togetherness, loving one another, and all bleeding red have lost their currency in buying short term peace between the many disparate and mutually antagonistic groups. Partition along racial and political lines is an idea whose time has come.

I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then...

It was that way even before it became a country. One example is that New Englanders, in particular, were pretty much always a thorn in the side of the rest. After the constitution was imposed on "the people," there was always a looming threat of secession from one quarter or another.

None of that surprises me since even the "loving" Christians faced many difficulties in getting along with each other if, "Paul's" gospels can be taken at face value, and more often than not, didn't. Jospehus, too, relates numerous incidents of Jew against Jew. Hence the various schisms, sects, factions and variants of all of them.

I am afraid Rurik may be right. At some point I believe the United States will be rendered asunder----hopefully by peaceful means but by violent ones if necessary. Hopefully the reasonable leaders of the various racial groups can sit down and work out some sort of confederation plan where each racial group has its own autonomous state, with the Blacks in the Deep South, non White Hispanics in the southwest and extreme Southern California, the rest of California divided between the Oriental races, yellow and brown, and the rest of the U.S. reserved for White people and Amerindians. The Whites might also have to sub-divide their territory with conservative Whites in the West, Mid West and South and the leftists concentrated in the Northeast. Each race would have complete internal control of their own affairs, but a representative government in Washington controlled by White loyalists and patriots would make the federal laws regarding immigration, trade, defense and foreign affairs with some input from non Europeans. The military would be "multi-racial" but only stationed on our borders or in strategic bases abroad and led by mostly White officers and civilians. The Blacks and Hispanics might require some economic aid and technical assistance from the Whites to help run their ethno states and so be it----if it buys America peace and keeps at least part of it a White, European, Western, Christian republic whose base is an Anglo-Saxon, English speaking, Protestant society with religious and civil freedoms guaranteed for all. The alternatives are a horrendous race war between the various colors and nationalities which would result in the U.S. becoming another Yugoslavia or Lebanon or worse yet degenerate into a Third World, mongrel country with a tiny White elite and the population divided between only the poor and the rich and their lackeys as many Latin American nations are today. This would be literally death in life and a sad end and endless night for what was once a model, an example, a shining city on a hill that the rest of the world envied and emulated. A day of reckoning peaceful or otherwise is looming. I pray we choose wisely.

Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind’s most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?

Today’s elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?

The idea that “diversity is strength”, in the context of a society, is the kind of barefaced falsehood that only a man made foolish or dishonest by political dogma could believe or assert.

Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force, and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks. Any diversity is a fault line, along which a society can crack under pressure, even if that pressure is merely the kind of opportunist identity lobby charlatans who have done so much harm in modern American and European societies.

Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

Pat like most Amurikans in the Fourth Reich have forgotten what ideals animated the American and French revolutions: liberty from tyrannical big guvmints, liberty to strike out on one’s own to build a business and a homestead, and a declaration of universal human rights (life liberty pursuit of happiness privacy) all of which the current and past empires have trampled upon in the name of greed for money and power…the glue that defines America is precisely the willingness to risk life and property for these ideals… if we studied our two greatest wars 1770-87 and 1859-1965 (civil rights and states rights) we might educate ourselves to the light and dark in our culture

We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another happiness over the fraud. And as for God blessing the USA, I'd suggest he damn and abolish what it's become, i.e., a bankrupt, money grubbing, thrill seeking, doped up, dumbed down, hypocritical, military-corporate protection and extortion racket.

As a Catholic, Mr B ought to go read his Bible, particularly the parts where G-d himself is fed up with nations. Why he would feel that way should be pretty obvious by now.

This is a degenerate nation whose new faith is homomania.
People have tattoos and piercings for identity. Even in elite colleges.
Mainstream culture has been pornified. Just turn on the TV. Some primetime shows are downright lurid.
We have white families falling apart too and opoid addiction going thru the roof.
Gambling is of the main industries and GOP’s main sugar daddy is cretin Sheldon Adelson.
Fathers raise their boys to be pansies and their girls to be skanky sluts.
Catholic church is home of pederasty and homo agenda.
Women’s idea of protest is wearing ‘pussy hats’ and spewing vulgar filth from their lips.
Media are 100x nuttier than Joe McCarthy in their hysteria and paranoia. These are the very Libs who’d once made McCarthy the most sinister person in US history.
Blacks routinely beat up & wussify white boys and colonize white wombs, but white ‘Muricans worship black thugs in sports and rappers.
Blacks do most violence but we are supposed to believe BLM.
Americans eat like pigs.
US has become the premier imperialist power in the world, even aiding Alqaeda in Syria and aiding neo-nazis in Ukriane.
We are told we must support Israel or Sodomia because it has the biggest homo ‘pride’ parade.
And ‘pride’ is now synonymous with homo fecal penetration.

I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then and if fact we're starting to see things slowly escalate to threats, fisticuffs and even a few shootings.

So no, we are not one nation and never will be again. Moreover, white people in America are no longer one people. On one side you have the racial self loathing, neo-Bolshevik, Bernie Sanders worshipping freaks like Reality Winner, James Hodgkinson and their sympathizers and enablers while on the other you have the basket of deplorables, or whites who don't want to become a minority and who despise political correctness, SJW's and the radical leftism that's eating away at our institutions like a cancer.

Economic prosperity, school vouchers, tax cuts, more minority set asides, single payer health care and syrupy rhetoric about togetherness, loving one another, and all bleeding red have lost their currency in buying short term peace between the many disparate and mutually antagonistic groups. Partition along racial and political lines is an idea whose time has come.

And on the third hand you have the whack-job “Christian” Zionist Israel first traitors.

Today’s elites proclaim that our diversity is our strength. But is this true or a tenet of trendy ideology?

The idea that "diversity is strength", in the context of a society, is the kind of barefaced falsehood that only a man made foolish or dishonest by political dogma could believe or assert.

Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues - race, culture, religion - can be held together other than by brute force, and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks. Any diversity is a fault line, along which a society can crack under pressure, even if that pressure is merely the kind of opportunist identity lobby charlatans who have done so much harm in modern American and European societies.

But common sense has little chance in the face of ideology.

Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

"Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture."

Which America has.

"Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society."

According to Vox Day, only the English immigrants were able to understand the Rights Of Englishmen. Non-English immigrants perverted its meaning. Are you non-English? If yes, you have to go back.

Jacques Sheete...

"We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another happiness over the fraud."

Thank you for your virtue signaling.

"Can a cesspool be a nation? If so, who would want it?"

Except America is not a cesspool, nor resembles anything like it.

The Jester...

"In a historic turnabout, we have now given the feminists and sexual deviants hiding behind Cultural Marxist ideology a legally protected status and (under the Marxist aphorism that personal choice defines one’s culture, gender, and sex) are inviting massive immigration from the hell-holes populating the Third and Fourth Worlds."

The scope of Cultural Marxism is Fake News.

Randal...

"Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force..."

Except America does not fit that description.

"and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks."

Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

Not enough of them vociferously enough to make the ruling elites pay attention, clearly.

Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

As I noted, ideology trumps common sense, for those who make policy and for those who wish to be seen as good guys by their supposed betters and peers.

America is a culture in decay, it is a huge piece of land with lots of resources and ruled by outside forces from within. It is pimped to the max!!! Our cuckold “experts and politicians” imaginations run wild whenever the pimps (from outside) and their representatives (within) give the orders to further push this land into an increasingly decadent society….. look how happy we are when we kill defenseless people, clearing their (pimps) garbage, work hard to collect wealth for them, it is soooo sad just thinking about it. Carrying the pimp’s flag is considered one of the most patriotic thing to do, ask Tom Cotton, Bolton, Rumsfeld….

“As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and United States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People.

“Many, if not most, descendants of immigrants are not the Posterity of the then-People of the United States. Neither are people living in Mexico, Germany, Israel, or even Great Britain. The U.S. Constitution was not written for them, nor was it ever intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty for them. The idea that the Constitution was intended to do anything at all for immigrants, resident aliens, or foreigners is as absurd as the idea that its emanations and penumbras provide them with an unalienable right to an abortion. The fact that courts have declared otherwise is totally irrelevant.

“The proposition nation is a lie. There is no such thing, there never was any such thing, and there never will be any such thing.”

So, everyone on this fine blog, if you are unable to trace directly your ancestors to British settlers, YOU MUST GO BACK. Like, immediately.

Happy 4th Of July!

Tom Kratman, a science fiction writer, took Vox Day to task on this matter.

"All of which invites the question: Are we still a nation? And what is a nation?"

Aelius Aristides, a Greek who received Roman citizenship in 123 A.D. stated...

You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire...everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. Neither the sea nor the great expanse of intervening land keeps one from being a citizen, and there is no distinction between Europe and Asia...No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust. Rather, there is here a common "world democracy" under the rule of one man, the best ruler and director...You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans...and because you have divided people in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with you, no less than the share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens have not even seen this city [Rome]! There is no need for troops to garrison the strategic high points of these cities, because the most important and powerful people in each region guard their native lands for you...yet there is not a residue of resentment among those excluded [from Roman citizenship and a share in the governance of the provinces]. Because your government is both universal and like that of a single city-state, its governors rightly rule not as foreigners but, as it were, their own people...Additionally, all of the masses of subjects under this government have protection against the more powerful of their native countrymen, by virtue of your anger and vengeance, which would fall upon the more powerful without delay should they dare to break the law. Thus, the present government serves rich and poor alike, and your constitution has developed a single, harmonious, all-embracing union. What in former days seemed impossible has in your time come to pass: You control a vast empire with a rule that is firm but not unkind..."

Ultimately, the American identity has not been lost within the past 60 years, it just has transformed, similar to when the Thirteen Colonies began as primarily British, but subsumed other European groups who were historic rivals, and eventually non-Europeans. The Welsh, the Cornish, Bavarians, the Catalans--they were distinct sub-Europeans groups, but over generations they intermingled and dispersed in our great land. Americans are a mixture of European and non-European ethnostates who, like any and all groups, self-identify. They know who they are and where they come from, and create groups who share their self-identities. Furthermore, the default for American is American and not a particular race, regardless of one’s willingness to admit it this decided fact. When you call yourself a black American or a Chinese American, you are still an American, as in residing in the nation referred as the United States. And while Yankees and Southerners and Midwesterners are clearly different, they are not separate “tribes” or “nations”, just locations with groups of people who self-identify geographically, socially, and culturally.

This identification is the direct result of indoctrination...from our Founding Fathers.

We no longer have the same ancestors. They are of every color and from every country. We do not speak one language, but rather English, Spanish and a host of others. We long ago ceased to profess the same religion. We are Evangelical Christians, mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, agnostics and atheists.

Pat seems to imply that if the original ancestry had been maintained, America would not have the problems it now faces. He singlehandedly lays out the blame for the decline of American Republic/democracy at the feet of non-white foreigners. Let us follow this line of reasoning and see where it leads us.

First, unless the original white immigrants to this country had wiped out every non-white resident (the American Indians) of this country, there would still be non-white people living in America.

However, leaving that little detail aside, let us examine who caused the decline of America. The laws of the land are enacted by the congress of the United States. The US congress has the sole power of imposing taxation, allowing immigration, and the conduct of wars. Up until recently the congress of the United States consisted of mostly white citizens. Out of the 45 presidents that the country has seen, all but one have been white Americans. The one black president was more white than black. Just check with black citizens and they will tell you that they were better off before him.

The British taxes, without representation, that the colonist rebelled against were much lower than what they are now. These taxes have been imposed by the white congressmen and signed by white presidents.

The immigration laws and quotas were passed by the white congress and signed by white presidents.

The wars, both declared and undeclared, have been waged by the white presidents.
While I sympathize with Mr Buchanan lamenting upon the good old days, no one but his own white folks have destroyed those good old days. America took pride in been called the nation of immigrants but only when the going was good. As long as, the immigrant scientist, engineers, and architects made this country great they were welcome but as soon as things got rough America blamed the immigrants.

Mr. Buchanan, don’t blame all immigrants. Most of them are still productive and faithful to their adopted country. If you want to blame someone, follow the money, since money is the root of all evil. I don’t have to tell you who controls the money. You should know very well who. I have followed your career for a long time. I even voted for you in 1992 presidential primary. You were very outspoken then but your wings have been clipped. There is no zing left in your writing. You have toned down criticism of the very group of people that have destroyed this country.

Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

Bill Jones…

“Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.”

Which America has.

“Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society.”

According to Vox Day, only the English immigrants were able to understand the Rights Of Englishmen. Non-English immigrants perverted its meaning. Are you non-English? If yes, you have to go back.

Jacques Sheete…

“We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another happiness over the fraud.”

Thank you for your virtue signaling.

“Can a cesspool be a nation? If so, who would want it?”

Except America is not a cesspool, nor resembles anything like it.

The Jester…

“In a historic turnabout, we have now given the feminists and sexual deviants hiding behind Cultural Marxist ideology a legally protected status and (under the Marxist aphorism that personal choice defines one’s culture, gender, and sex) are inviting massive immigration from the hell-holes populating the Third and Fourth Worlds.”

The scope of Cultural Marxism is Fake News.

Randal…

“Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force…”

Except America does not fit that description.

“and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks.”

The early US was broadly exactly that, with the relatively minor cultural differences balanced by the cohesive advantages of being an exploitative settler colonial state with land for all and a desperate shortage of labour, meaning dissent that could not be crushed could be bought off. And for all that, it was still only held together by brute force, with a brutal civil war required to suppress the secessionist desires of its southern half.

America’s people are bound by a common set of values.

America is still held together by exactly what it has always been held together by - greed and brute force. An end to the centuries long free lunch provided by the theft and exploitation of a near virgin continent and it will break up.

It's already getting fractious after just a decade of slow growth.

All of the natural progress towards forging a real nation out of the original settlers was thrown away by the mass importation of peoples with distinct identities, first as slaves and later as cheap labour or as greedy immigrants and refugees, and by the triumph of leftist identity politics.

Societies succeed because they've built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture.
Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.
Despite this rejection the fantasy continues to be foisted upon the people.

It’s been done before, and when a native people rose up to impose legal restraints on the offenses against the culture the natives had built up, they were demonized and then destroyed.

At Carthage it was merely the fields that were sown with salt. In Germany, the minds and wombs of the German people were plowed under and sown with salt.

That is the lesson, the overwhelming object lesson that restrains Americans from rising up to defend their culture.

“In the first line of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson speaks of “one people.” The Constitution, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia in 1789, begins, “We the people…” And who were these “people”? In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as “one united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” **If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?**

**YES

It would appear that Mr. Buchanan is making an argument our Founding Fathers established a British enthnostate, but IF (and I say IF) he is taking this position, similar to Vox Day, then he is totally wrong. Preserving rights "for one's posterity" was legal repudiation of feudalism, which stated liberties were a grant from a monarch and the State, and reverted upon his/her death. That is, fundamental freedoms were NOT passed to future generations. The Declaration and the Federalist Papers in particular destroys that feudalist notion. More importantly, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, as a component of our Constitution and reflects original intent, granted Congress and NOT the States the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization. By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and the liberties related to it, to an “outsider”.

So, the drafters of our Constitution and the adopting state s fully comprehended the new Congress would have to power to receive immigrants and set forth the standards under which they are naturalized. Citizenship therefore is NOT exclusively confined to the British. This means this argument that the franchise of citizenship is meant to be confined solely to the British children of rebel British subjects is not reflected in the clear meaning of the document. Since immigration was allowed to the United States, at first to Europeans but later extended to non-Europeans, the “posterity” includes more than the actual descendants of residents of our great nation at that time.

But, but, but “[the Constitution] did allow for the possibility of change. But change, by definition, is not the previous state. And the original purpose of the Constitution cannot change, obviously.” Well, a contract, which essentially is what is our Constitution, that has an amendment process is NOT meant to remain constant. It has no original purpose but to establish exactly what the Preamble states. Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People as a whole. While this population was primarily of British descent, the Dutch, Germans, Irish, Scots, French, Africans, and Native Americans ALL fought to remove the shackles of tyranny from Great Britain.

Posterity is synonymous with "legacy"--what we leave behind. Indeed, few, if any, had imagined when the Constitution was created that anyone BUT a white European had the intellectual capacity to embrace Republican principles of government...YET the criterion of commitment to those ideas is NOT itself racial or ethnic specific. Of course, that does NOT mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, and it is legitimate, although in my opinion unreasonable, to doubt that non-white groups are equal to the task to embrace such principles. Of course, in the past foreigners have ben excluded on racial and religious grounds.

Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People as a whole. While this population was primarily of British descent, the Dutch, Germans, Irish, Scots, French, Africans, and Native Americans ALL fought to remove the shackles of tyranny from Great Britain.

Posterity does indeed refer only to the progeny of the founding white racial stocks and no one else. Most blacks were slaves and the ones who were free didn’t qualify for citizenship. Jefferson referred to Indians as “merciless savages”, a sentiment shared by virtually all of the founders by first hand experience – not blind bigotry. Most Indians supported and fought for the British crown.

The naturalization act of 1790 only bestowed citizenship to “free, white persons of good moral character”. Not all whites living in the colonies were free.

YET the criterion of commitment to those ideas is NOT itself racial or ethnic specific.

Re-read John Jay’s address. It does indeed imply a racial and ethnic component to America’s founding and the type of government the English settlers formed. There is nothing universal or racially ambiguous about it.

although in my opinion unreasonable, to doubt that non-white groups are equal to the task to embrace such principles.

The evidence is in and they aren’t up to the task. Non-white political pressure groups continually denounce America’s founding and our form of government as racist, sexist, xenophobic, ad nauseum which perpetuates so called white privilege. Super majorities support the left wing thugs, demagogues and anti-white bigots of the Democrat party. Yeah, they’re really up to the task alright.

Barack Hussein Obama was our first non-white president. His disregard for checks and balances, disdain for our history, willingness to act unilaterally in violation of the Constitution and the lawlessness of his administration far outdid Bill Clinton’s. He acted more like Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin or your run of the mill African potentate than George Washington.

You’d make a great SCOTUS justice since you see things in the founders writings that simply aren’t there or distorts their original intent to fit the SJW worldview.

"Posterity does indeed refer only to the progeny of the founding white racial stocks and no one else."

That is patently false. Refer to Mr. Kratman's argument that I linked to. There are several definitions of "posterity".

"Most blacks were slaves and the ones who were free didn’t qualify for citizenship. Jefferson referred to Indians as “merciless savages”, a sentiment shared by virtually all of the founders by first hand experience – not blind bigotry."

At the time, these attitudes were generally accepted. However, attitudes change. It does not mean their initial thoughts on the matter are the standard bearer moving forward.

"Most Indians supported and fought for the British crown."

Considering that Native Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place, who could blame them? The British had violently seized their lands in the past, but made a promise that there would be no more colonial encroachment. The colonists, on the other hand, promised tribal groups they would be left alone if they assisted them in their cause.

"The naturalization act of 1790 only bestowed citizenship to “free, white persons of good moral character”. Not all whites living in the colonies were free."

And the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to change that criteria by way of law or by way of constitutional amendment.

"Re-read John Jay’s address."

He had many addresses. Which one are you specifically referring to?

"The evidence is in and they aren’t up to the task. Non-white political pressure groups continually denounce America’s founding and our form of government as racist, sexist, xenophobic, ad nauseum which perpetuates so called white privilege. Super majorities support the left wing thugs, demagogues and anti-white bigots of the Democrat party. Yeah, they’re really up to the task alright."

First, you are virtue signaling.

Second, these groups are exercising their First Amendment right, so clearly they are up to the task.

Third, you do realize that Vox Day clearly stated that even non-English are not "up to the task". How would you respond to his position?

"Barack Hussein Obama was our first non-white president. His disregard for checks and balances, disdain for our history, willingness to act unilaterally in violation of the Constitution and the lawlessness of his administration far outdid Bill Clinton’s. He acted more like Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin or your run of the mill African potentate than George Washington."

Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

"You’d make a great SCOTUS justice since you see things in the founders writings that simply aren’t there or distorts their original intent to fit the SJW worldview."

Remember, the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to enable Congress to set the criteria for citizenship.

Is America too big for democracy? Too big for its traditional republican form? What does it mean if the answer is yes? This video series proposes that the source of our biggest social and political problems is our SIZE.

Wow! One of the most interesting and thoughtful things I've come across in a while. Of course this idea seems intuitive, but to have it put to numbers and explained succinctly like that was just great. Seems we need to scale things back to the more manageable state level having more power than the Feds.

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them…”

I dissolved my bonds to any fealty to the USA when I learned of Affirmative Action. – That poor and working class men like myself were to be discriminated against in our “own” country.

All it took was the knowledge that this nation had ditched its principles, (if it ever had any), and by doing so, it not only sacrificed my well-being on the slab of its expedience, but any hope that I’d personally ever consider it anything but a land I happened to have been born in, with zero regard for its laws or leadership or institutions. They were all *obviously* rotten to the core.

Any nation that tells its young men that they are to be sacrificed for the benefit of others, based on race, because ‘discrimination is wrong’, is not just unprincipled and immoral, but its so over-the-top insulting, as to be laughable.

They can use force to do it of course, and they did and do. But any person of moral character will see such a regime for what it is; dishonorable, ignoble, immoral, unprincipled and worthy only of mockery and contempt. And that’s all I’ve ever felt for it. Contempt.

I’ve always loved the people of the US, and still cherish its heritage in my heart, but for as long as I’ve been alive and subject to the criminal abomination of Affirmative Action, I’ve always known that the USA is a fraud and a lie. Run by worms who’ve lost their integrity and honor on the slab of political expedience.

I long ago stopped ‘pledging allegiance to the flag’, what a humiliating farce. Like an Amerindian waving the US flag.

Is the US (and the West in general) doomed to racial dissolution and strife?

It’s a certainty. And all of us people of good character should have long ago tossed that once sacred flag, but now a dishonored piece of cloth- into the garbage bin- as soon as it stopped representing those ideals that so many men died to imbue into those colors. It is for those ideals that I live, (not the cloth or the criminals in DC). And I still hold them sacred, but for what the US has become, I wouldn’t give a plug nickel. The sooner it dissolves into separate states, the better. The rot has metastasized, the gates are open, and it’s all men for themselves.

Any parent that would let their [white] son serve in this military, is not just a fool and a chump, but the worst parent a child could have. One that would sacrifice his young life and his soul to die for his worst enemies in illegal wars being fought against people who’ve done us no harm.

watching the ZUS slaughter, terrorize, torture and displace millions of innocents thousands of miles away, (always based on lies), even as the same scum in DC do all they can to destroy what’s left of this homeland, how anyone can still pretend that there’s anything left of honor in that flag or this anti-nation, I just don’t know. If it once represented the spirit of a people who would die rather than sacrifice their freedom and dignity, then those people and that spirit are dead and gone. [RIP]

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them…”

I dissolved my bonds to any fealty to the USA when I learned of Affirmative Action. - That poor and working class men like myself were to be discriminated against in our "own" country.

All it took was the knowledge that this nation had ditched its principles, (if it ever had any), and by doing so, it not only sacrificed my well-being on the slab of its expedience, but any hope that I'd personally ever consider it anything but a land I happened to have been born in, with zero regard for its laws or leadership or institutions. They were all *obviously* rotten to the core.

Any nation that tells its young men that they are to be sacrificed for the benefit of others, based on race, because 'discrimination is wrong', is not just unprincipled and immoral, but its so over-the-top insulting, as to be laughable.

They can use force to do it of course, and they did and do. But any person of moral character will see such a regime for what it is; dishonorable, ignoble, immoral, unprincipled and worthy only of mockery and contempt. And that's all I've ever felt for it. Contempt.

I've always loved the people of the US, and still cherish its heritage in my heart, but for as long as I've been alive and subject to the criminal abomination of Affirmative Action, I've always known that the USA is a fraud and a lie. Run by worms who've lost their integrity and honor on the slab of political expedience.

I long ago stopped 'pledging allegiance to the flag', what a humiliating farce. Like an Amerindian waving the US flag.

http://www.clevelandwomen.com/images/powwow/ge6.jpg

Is the US (and the West in general) doomed to racial dissolution and strife?

It's a certainty. And all of us people of good character should have long ago tossed that once sacred flag, but now a dishonored piece of cloth- into the garbage bin- as soon as it stopped representing those ideals that so many men died to imbue into those colors. It is for those ideals that I live, (not the cloth or the criminals in DC). And I still hold them sacred, but for what the US has become, I wouldn't give a plug nickel. The sooner it dissolves into separate states, the better. The rot has metastasized, the gates are open, and it's all men for themselves.

Any parent that would let their [white] son serve in this military, is not just a fool and a chump, but the worst parent a child could have. One that would sacrifice his young life and his soul to die for his worst enemies in illegal wars being fought against people who've done us no harm.

watching the ZUS slaughter, terrorize, torture and displace millions of innocents thousands of miles away, (always based on lies), even as the same scum in DC do all they can to destroy what's left of this homeland, how anyone can still pretend that there's anything left of honor in that flag or this anti-nation, I just don't know. If it once represented the spirit of a people who would die rather than sacrifice their freedom and dignity, then those people and that spirit are dead and gone. [RIP]

This is my favorite reading. The Declaration of Independence (as read by Max McLean)

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

Another great post! This is also a good read on the spirit in the early generation in the fledgling US:
"Today, with military bases in more than 70 countries across the globe, the US remains an empire. Yet, the generation of Americans who fought for independence from Britain and laid the foundations of America’s identity saw the US as an anti-imperial cause and nation. The founding generation and the children of the founders were fascinated with Mysore and its leaders because they thought Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan embodied American values of resistance to empire and aspiration to freedom. If later generations of Americans had continued to see Haider and Tipu as heroes, had continued to identify with underdogs and anti-imperial causes, then the US, and indeed the world, might look quite different today."
https://aeon.co/essays/why-american-revolutionaries-admired-the-rebels-of-mysore

Was the discovery of America and conquest of this continent from 1492 to the 20th century among the most glorious chapters in the history of man? Or was it a half-millennium marked by mankind’s most scarlet of sins: the genocide of native peoples, the enslavement of Africans, the annihilation of indigenous cultures, the spoliation of a virgin land?

Both, obviously.

Of course it would have been a great idea to keep a whole continent for the preservation of stone age people and their superior culture.

I am sure most people would agree with you that bringing black Africans here as slaves was a terrible idea. For several reasons. One of them being that now they are here.

Of course it would have been a great idea to keep a whole continent for the preservation of stone age people and their superior culture.

Oh sorry, did I offend against some romantic notion you had that your particular country is special and nobody should point out its negatives, even when duly balanced against the positives? I do understand that some people think patriotism means desperately clinging to some cartoonish idea of perfection for their own country unlike all others.

As for preserving a stone age people, of course the reality is that had they not been destroyed the native peoples of the Americas would have likely picked up the technological advances of the west after contact was established, and developed in their own way.

Which is not to say that such development would not have involved its own turmoil and mass slaughter, or that if the Atlantic European peoples had not invaded and taken the land then some other more advanced (than the natives) peoples might not have done so.

But the fact remains after all that, that US wealth is based upon the theft and ruthless exploitation of an entire relatively unexploited continent and genocide of the former inhabitants, together with ongoing expansionary aggression to build a continental superstate and later colonial empire, benefitting from continental security to keep expanding whilst the old powers destroyed themselves. It's also based upon the genius of the European peoples involved in doing all that and a uniquely effective political system and culture mostly inherited from the British.

If you ignore either aspect, then you are going to come up with a grossly distorted understanding of reality.

I am sure most people would agree with you that bringing black Africans here as slaves was a terrible idea. For several reasons. One of them being that now they are here.

Is America too big for democracy? Too big for its traditional republican form? What does it mean if the answer is yes? This video series proposes that the source of our biggest social and political problems is our SIZE.

https://youtu.be/RCNd7h0fsdE

Hey agent76,

Wow! One of the most interesting and thoughtful things I’ve come across in a while. Of course this idea seems intuitive, but to have it put to numbers and explained succinctly like that was just great. Seems we need to scale things back to the more manageable state level having more power than the Feds.

That's one of the tragedies of the Civil War, and why removal of statues of Robert E Lee (and of the Confederate flag) compounds the felony of that war: as Lee wrote to Lord Acton in the course of the war, he, Lee, who owned property in the Union, fought to preserve the principle of Federalism, which, in his mind included the concept that each state was its own sovereign. Removing the symbols of the Civil War renders the American people historically amnesiacs.

Lee's correspondence with Lord Acton met a sympathetic reception: Acton argued passionately that what distinguished the American form of government from an Athenian democracy was precisely the power and authority vested in each state. States sovereignty guaranteed that a centralized power could not become so large and so powerful that it would ineluctably evolve into a tyranny. Once on that road, the centralized government could not be checked; the check-and-balance that the Framers had built in had been destroyed. A centralized government would thus have a free hand to wage war abroad as well as at home.

Posterity does not refer to the progeny of the founders but of the People as a whole. While this population was primarily of British descent, the Dutch, Germans, Irish, Scots, French, Africans, and Native Americans ALL fought to remove the shackles of tyranny from Great Britain.

Posterity does indeed refer only to the progeny of the founding white racial stocks and no one else. Most blacks were slaves and the ones who were free didn't qualify for citizenship. Jefferson referred to Indians as "merciless savages", a sentiment shared by virtually all of the founders by first hand experience - not blind bigotry. Most Indians supported and fought for the British crown.

The naturalization act of 1790 only bestowed citizenship to "free, white persons of good moral character". Not all whites living in the colonies were free.

YET the criterion of commitment to those ideas is NOT itself racial or ethnic specific.

Re-read John Jay's address. It does indeed imply a racial and ethnic component to America's founding and the type of government the English settlers formed. There is nothing universal or racially ambiguous about it.

although in my opinion unreasonable, to doubt that non-white groups are equal to the task to embrace such principles.

The evidence is in and they aren't up to the task. Non-white political pressure groups continually denounce America's founding and our form of government as racist, sexist, xenophobic, ad nauseum which perpetuates so called white privilege. Super majorities support the left wing thugs, demagogues and anti-white bigots of the Democrat party. Yeah, they're really up to the task alright.

Barack Hussein Obama was our first non-white president. His disregard for checks and balances, disdain for our history, willingness to act unilaterally in violation of the Constitution and the lawlessness of his administration far outdid Bill Clinton's. He acted more like Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin or your run of the mill African potentate than George Washington.

You'd make a great SCOTUS justice since you see things in the founders writings that simply aren't there or distorts their original intent to fit the SJW worldview.

“Posterity does indeed refer only to the progeny of the founding white racial stocks and no one else.”

That is patently false. Refer to Mr. Kratman’s argument that I linked to. There are several definitions of “posterity”.

“Most blacks were slaves and the ones who were free didn’t qualify for citizenship. Jefferson referred to Indians as “merciless savages”, a sentiment shared by virtually all of the founders by first hand experience – not blind bigotry.”

At the time, these attitudes were generally accepted. However, attitudes change. It does not mean their initial thoughts on the matter are the standard bearer moving forward.

“Most Indians supported and fought for the British crown.”

Considering that Native Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place, who could blame them? The British had violently seized their lands in the past, but made a promise that there would be no more colonial encroachment. The colonists, on the other hand, promised tribal groups they would be left alone if they assisted them in their cause.

“The naturalization act of 1790 only bestowed citizenship to “free, white persons of good moral character”. Not all whites living in the colonies were free.”

And the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to change that criteria by way of law or by way of constitutional amendment.

“Re-read John Jay’s address.”

He had many addresses. Which one are you specifically referring to?

“The evidence is in and they aren’t up to the task. Non-white political pressure groups continually denounce America’s founding and our form of government as racist, sexist, xenophobic, ad nauseum which perpetuates so called white privilege. Super majorities support the left wing thugs, demagogues and anti-white bigots of the Democrat party. Yeah, they’re really up to the task alright.”

First, you are virtue signaling.

Second, these groups are exercising their First Amendment right, so clearly they are up to the task.

Third, you do realize that Vox Day clearly stated that even non-English are not “up to the task”. How would you respond to his position?

“Barack Hussein Obama was our first non-white president. His disregard for checks and balances, disdain for our history, willingness to act unilaterally in violation of the Constitution and the lawlessness of his administration far outdid Bill Clinton’s. He acted more like Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin or your run of the mill African potentate than George Washington.”

Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

“You’d make a great SCOTUS justice since you see things in the founders writings that simply aren’t there or distorts their original intent to fit the SJW worldview.”

Remember, the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to enable Congress to set the criteria for citizenship.

That is patently false. Refer to Mr. Kratman’s argument that I linked to. There are several definitions of “posterity”.

Kratman is a science fiction writer with an opinion. But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned "our Posterity" in the preamble. Only that he believed it's inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.

At the time, these attitudes were generally accepted. However, attitudes change. It does not mean their initial thoughts on the matter are the standard bearer moving forward.

Attitudes didn't change naturally. It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race. Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector. Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in "free" America. So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.

And the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to change that criteria by way of law or by way of constitutional amendment.

And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America's European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.

He had many addresses. Which one are you specifically referring to?

The one at the beginning of Buchanan's article. “One united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It's reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans. He didn't have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.

That only "Free, white persons" qualified for citizenship in the 1790 nationality act tells me the framers and the first Congresses were open to most non-English European ethnic groups. Otherwise it would have read "Free white persons of English descent". Don't forget that many English loyal to the Crown were expelled to Canada following the war, so the founders didn't think all Englishmen were equal.

Second, these groups are exercising their First Amendment right, so clearly they are up to the task.

They're using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government. So they're up to the task of destroying and defacing what earlier generations of white Americans worked so hard to build. The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.

Third, you do realize that Vox Day clearly stated that even non-English are not “up to the task”. How would you respond to his position?

Don't know and would need to read his article, but given that many non-English European ethnic groups have served with distinction in the armed forces, the government and private sector and have been loyal to the Constitution I'd say he's probably wrong. And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.

This is my favorite reading. The Declaration of Independence (as read by Max McLean)

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

https://youtu.be/4uE-tqe0xsQ

Another great post! This is also a good read on the spirit in the early generation in the fledgling US:
“Today, with military bases in more than 70 countries across the globe, the US remains an empire. Yet, the generation of Americans who fought for independence from Britain and laid the foundations of America’s identity saw the US as an anti-imperial cause and nation. The founding generation and the children of the founders were fascinated with Mysore and its leaders because they thought Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan embodied American values of resistance to empire and aspiration to freedom. If later generations of Americans had continued to see Haider and Tipu as heroes, had continued to identify with underdogs and anti-imperial causes, then the US, and indeed the world, might look quite different today.”

Of course it would have been a great idea to keep a whole continent for the preservation of stone age people and their superior culture.

I am sure most people would agree with you that bringing black Africans here as slaves was a terrible idea. For several reasons. One of them being that now they are here.

Of course it would have been a great idea to keep a whole continent for the preservation of stone age people and their superior culture.

Oh sorry, did I offend against some romantic notion you had that your particular country is special and nobody should point out its negatives, even when duly balanced against the positives? I do understand that some people think patriotism means desperately clinging to some cartoonish idea of perfection for their own country unlike all others.

As for preserving a stone age people, of course the reality is that had they not been destroyed the native peoples of the Americas would have likely picked up the technological advances of the west after contact was established, and developed in their own way.

Which is not to say that such development would not have involved its own turmoil and mass slaughter, or that if the Atlantic European peoples had not invaded and taken the land then some other more advanced (than the natives) peoples might not have done so.

But the fact remains after all that, that US wealth is based upon the theft and ruthless exploitation of an entire relatively unexploited continent and genocide of the former inhabitants, together with ongoing expansionary aggression to build a continental superstate and later colonial empire, benefitting from continental security to keep expanding whilst the old powers destroyed themselves. It’s also based upon the genius of the European peoples involved in doing all that and a uniquely effective political system and culture mostly inherited from the British.

If you ignore either aspect, then you are going to come up with a grossly distorted understanding of reality.

I am sure most people would agree with you that bringing black Africans here as slaves was a terrible idea. For several reasons. One of them being that now they are here.

"Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs. The core of the culture."

Which America has.

"Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society."

According to Vox Day, only the English immigrants were able to understand the Rights Of Englishmen. Non-English immigrants perverted its meaning. Are you non-English? If yes, you have to go back.

Jacques Sheete...

"We should be mourning our lost liberties on the Fourth, not wishing one another happiness over the fraud."

Thank you for your virtue signaling.

"Can a cesspool be a nation? If so, who would want it?"

Except America is not a cesspool, nor resembles anything like it.

The Jester...

"In a historic turnabout, we have now given the feminists and sexual deviants hiding behind Cultural Marxist ideology a legally protected status and (under the Marxist aphorism that personal choice defines one’s culture, gender, and sex) are inviting massive immigration from the hell-holes populating the Third and Fourth Worlds."

The scope of Cultural Marxism is Fake News.

Randal...

"Common sense says that only societies that are at least reasonably homogeneous on most major issues – race, culture, religion – can be held together other than by brute force..."

Except America does not fit that description.

"and that the more homogeneous a society is the stronger it will be, in the sense of withstanding hard times an external shocks."

America's people are bound by a common set of values.

Except America does not fit that description.

The early US was broadly exactly that, with the relatively minor cultural differences balanced by the cohesive advantages of being an exploitative settler colonial state with land for all and a desperate shortage of labour, meaning dissent that could not be crushed could be bought off. And for all that, it was still only held together by brute force, with a brutal civil war required to suppress the secessionist desires of its southern half.

America’s people are bound by a common set of values.

America is still held together by exactly what it has always been held together by – greed and brute force. An end to the centuries long free lunch provided by the theft and exploitation of a near virgin continent and it will break up.

It’s already getting fractious after just a decade of slow growth.

All of the natural progress towards forging a real nation out of the original settlers was thrown away by the mass importation of peoples with distinct identities, first as slaves and later as cheap labour or as greedy immigrants and refugees, and by the triumph of leftist identity politics.

"The early US was broadly exactly that, with the relatively minor cultural differences balanced by the cohesive advantages of being an exploitative settler colonial state with land for all and a desperate shortage of labour, meaning dissent that could not be crushed could be bought off. "

The Europeans who settled America had significant cultural and religious differences. Moreover, they sought to take advantage, rather than exploit, the available natural resources for their political and economic posterity.

"And for all that, it was still only held together by brute force, with a brutal civil war required to suppress the secessionist desires of its southern half."

No. America is held by a common people, language, customs, and law. The citizens of our great land have created rules by which we are to adhere to. "Brute force" is generally employed against lawbreakers.

"America is still held together by exactly what it has always been held together by – greed and brute force."

It is decidedly much more than those two factors.

"An end to the centuries long free lunch provided by the theft and exploitation of a near virgin continent and it will break up."

It MAY break up. You and I do not know for certain.

"All of the natural progress towards forging a real nation out of the original settlers was thrown away by the mass importation of peoples with distinct identities, first as slaves and later as cheap labour or as greedy immigrants and refugees, and by the triumph of leftist identity politics."

The original settlers were several distinct European groups. Later on, as our Founding Fathers granted to Congress, other European and non-European groups entered our shores, with most people supporting these immigrants, considering their own ancestors arrived here in the same manner.

The early US was broadly exactly that, with the relatively minor cultural differences balanced by the cohesive advantages of being an exploitative settler colonial state with land for all and a desperate shortage of labour, meaning dissent that could not be crushed could be bought off. And for all that, it was still only held together by brute force, with a brutal civil war required to suppress the secessionist desires of its southern half.

America’s people are bound by a common set of values.

America is still held together by exactly what it has always been held together by - greed and brute force. An end to the centuries long free lunch provided by the theft and exploitation of a near virgin continent and it will break up.

It's already getting fractious after just a decade of slow growth.

All of the natural progress towards forging a real nation out of the original settlers was thrown away by the mass importation of peoples with distinct identities, first as slaves and later as cheap labour or as greedy immigrants and refugees, and by the triumph of leftist identity politics.

“The early US was broadly exactly that, with the relatively minor cultural differences balanced by the cohesive advantages of being an exploitative settler colonial state with land for all and a desperate shortage of labour, meaning dissent that could not be crushed could be bought off. ”

The Europeans who settled America had significant cultural and religious differences. Moreover, they sought to take advantage, rather than exploit, the available natural resources for their political and economic posterity.

“And for all that, it was still only held together by brute force, with a brutal civil war required to suppress the secessionist desires of its southern half.”

No. America is held by a common people, language, customs, and law. The citizens of our great land have created rules by which we are to adhere to. “Brute force” is generally employed against lawbreakers.

“America is still held together by exactly what it has always been held together by – greed and brute force.”

It is decidedly much more than those two factors.

“An end to the centuries long free lunch provided by the theft and exploitation of a near virgin continent and it will break up.”

It MAY break up. You and I do not know for certain.

“All of the natural progress towards forging a real nation out of the original settlers was thrown away by the mass importation of peoples with distinct identities, first as slaves and later as cheap labour or as greedy immigrants and refugees, and by the triumph of leftist identity politics.”

The original settlers were several distinct European groups. Later on, as our Founding Fathers granted to Congress, other European and non-European groups entered our shores, with most people supporting these immigrants, considering their own ancestors arrived here in the same manner.

I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then and if fact we're starting to see things slowly escalate to threats, fisticuffs and even a few shootings.

So no, we are not one nation and never will be again. Moreover, white people in America are no longer one people. On one side you have the racial self loathing, neo-Bolshevik, Bernie Sanders worshipping freaks like Reality Winner, James Hodgkinson and their sympathizers and enablers while on the other you have the basket of deplorables, or whites who don't want to become a minority and who despise political correctness, SJW's and the radical leftism that's eating away at our institutions like a cancer.

Economic prosperity, school vouchers, tax cuts, more minority set asides, single payer health care and syrupy rhetoric about togetherness, loving one another, and all bleeding red have lost their currency in buying short term peace between the many disparate and mutually antagonistic groups. Partition along racial and political lines is an idea whose time has come.

I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then…

It was that way even before it became a country. One example is that New Englanders, in particular, were pretty much always a thorn in the side of the rest. After the constitution was imposed on “the people,” there was always a looming threat of secession from one quarter or another.

None of that surprises me since even the “loving” Christians faced many difficulties in getting along with each other if, “Paul’s” gospels can be taken at face value, and more often than not, didn’t. Jospehus, too, relates numerous incidents of Jew against Jew. Hence the various schisms, sects, factions and variants of all of them.

This is a degenerate nation whose new faith is homomania.
People have tattoos and piercings for identity. Even in elite colleges.
Mainstream culture has been pornified. Just turn on the TV. Some primetime shows are downright lurid.
We have white families falling apart too and opoid addiction going thru the roof.
Gambling is of the main industries and GOP's main sugar daddy is cretin Sheldon Adelson.
Fathers raise their boys to be pansies and their girls to be skanky sluts.
Catholic church is home of pederasty and homo agenda.
Women's idea of protest is wearing 'pussy hats' and spewing vulgar filth from their lips.
Media are 100x nuttier than Joe McCarthy in their hysteria and paranoia. These are the very Libs who'd once made McCarthy the most sinister person in US history.
Blacks routinely beat up & wussify white boys and colonize white wombs, but white 'Muricans worship black thugs in sports and rappers.
Blacks do most violence but we are supposed to believe BLM.
Americans eat like pigs.
US has become the premier imperialist power in the world, even aiding Alqaeda in Syria and aiding neo-nazis in Ukriane.
We are told we must support Israel or Sodomia because it has the biggest homo 'pride' parade.
And 'pride' is now synonymous with homo fecal penetration.

Why would God bless this kind of degenerate nation?

Correction.

Media are 100x nuttier than Joe McCarthy in their hysteria and paranoia.

Yes, the media are, and always have been nutty (and devious) which is an indication that they were full of BS about McCarthy.

McCarthy was more right than wrong. That’s probably the biggest reason he was scurrilously attacked and smeared which was a typical tactic of his vicious, brain dead calumniators.

Question everything especially if you heard it in school, gleaned it from the corporate media, or heard it from a politician or some other from some self proclaimed “authority”.

Why would God bless this kind of degenerate nation?

To the extent that G-d has blessed Amurka, I’ve come to question Her, too!!!

Wow! One of the most interesting and thoughtful things I've come across in a while. Of course this idea seems intuitive, but to have it put to numbers and explained succinctly like that was just great. Seems we need to scale things back to the more manageable state level having more power than the Feds.

Peace.

That’s one of the tragedies of the Civil War, and why removal of statues of Robert E Lee (and of the Confederate flag) compounds the felony of that war: as Lee wrote to Lord Acton in the course of the war, he, Lee, who owned property in the Union, fought to preserve the principle of Federalism, which, in his mind included the concept that each state was its own sovereign. Removing the symbols of the Civil War renders the American people historically amnesiacs.

Lee’s correspondence with Lord Acton met a sympathetic reception: Acton argued passionately that what distinguished the American form of government from an Athenian democracy was precisely the power and authority vested in each state. States sovereignty guaranteed that a centralized power could not become so large and so powerful that it would ineluctably evolve into a tyranny. Once on that road, the centralized government could not be checked; the check-and-balance that the Framers had built in had been destroyed. A centralized government would thus have a free hand to wage war abroad as well as at home.

"Posterity does indeed refer only to the progeny of the founding white racial stocks and no one else."

That is patently false. Refer to Mr. Kratman's argument that I linked to. There are several definitions of "posterity".

"Most blacks were slaves and the ones who were free didn’t qualify for citizenship. Jefferson referred to Indians as “merciless savages”, a sentiment shared by virtually all of the founders by first hand experience – not blind bigotry."

At the time, these attitudes were generally accepted. However, attitudes change. It does not mean their initial thoughts on the matter are the standard bearer moving forward.

"Most Indians supported and fought for the British crown."

Considering that Native Americans were caught between a rock and a hard place, who could blame them? The British had violently seized their lands in the past, but made a promise that there would be no more colonial encroachment. The colonists, on the other hand, promised tribal groups they would be left alone if they assisted them in their cause.

"The naturalization act of 1790 only bestowed citizenship to “free, white persons of good moral character”. Not all whites living in the colonies were free."

And the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to change that criteria by way of law or by way of constitutional amendment.

"Re-read John Jay’s address."

He had many addresses. Which one are you specifically referring to?

"The evidence is in and they aren’t up to the task. Non-white political pressure groups continually denounce America’s founding and our form of government as racist, sexist, xenophobic, ad nauseum which perpetuates so called white privilege. Super majorities support the left wing thugs, demagogues and anti-white bigots of the Democrat party. Yeah, they’re really up to the task alright."

First, you are virtue signaling.

Second, these groups are exercising their First Amendment right, so clearly they are up to the task.

Third, you do realize that Vox Day clearly stated that even non-English are not "up to the task". How would you respond to his position?

"Barack Hussein Obama was our first non-white president. His disregard for checks and balances, disdain for our history, willingness to act unilaterally in violation of the Constitution and the lawlessness of his administration far outdid Bill Clinton’s. He acted more like Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin or your run of the mill African potentate than George Washington."

Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

"You’d make a great SCOTUS justice since you see things in the founders writings that simply aren’t there or distorts their original intent to fit the SJW worldview."

Remember, the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to enable Congress to set the criteria for citizenship.

That is patently false. Refer to Mr. Kratman’s argument that I linked to. There are several definitions of “posterity”.

Kratman is a science fiction writer with an opinion. But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned “our Posterity” in the preamble. Only that he believed it’s inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.

At the time, these attitudes were generally accepted. However, attitudes change. It does not mean their initial thoughts on the matter are the standard bearer moving forward.

Attitudes didn’t change naturally. It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race. Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector. Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in “free” America. So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.

And the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to change that criteria by way of law or by way of constitutional amendment.

And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America’s European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.

He had many addresses. Which one are you specifically referring to?

The one at the beginning of Buchanan’s article. “One united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It’s reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans. He didn’t have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.

That only “Free, white persons” qualified for citizenship in the 1790 nationality act tells me the framers and the first Congresses were open to most non-English European ethnic groups. Otherwise it would have read “Free white persons of English descent”. Don’t forget that many English loyal to the Crown were expelled to Canada following the war, so the founders didn’t think all Englishmen were equal.

Second, these groups are exercising their First Amendment right, so clearly they are up to the task.

They’re using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government. So they’re up to the task of destroying and defacing what earlier generations of white Americans worked so hard to build. The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.

Third, you do realize that Vox Day clearly stated that even non-English are not “up to the task”. How would you respond to his position?

Don’t know and would need to read his article, but given that many non-English European ethnic groups have served with distinction in the armed forces, the government and private sector and have been loyal to the Constitution I’d say he’s probably wrong. And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.

“But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned “our Posterity” in the preamble.”

There was no need to argue that point on his part, since Kratman stated the Constitution has the Amendment process to address such matters.

“Only that he believed it’s inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.”

As well as non-Europeans.

“Attitudes didn’t change naturally.”

Another patently false statement on your part. These attitudes changed gradually over time, as increasing numbers of Americans from difference races and ethnic groups realized they had more in common than previously thought and began to challenge racial and ethnic stereotypes. Please stop being disingenuous.

“It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race.”

Which was the culmination of those changing attitudes that happened organically.

“Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector.”

Had the Southrons simply abided by the Plessy decision, there may not have been the need for whites and blacks to go to court to secure their liberties. Remember, the Court stated “separate but equal”. Except that Southrons got greedy and developed a political and economic system designed to maintain their dominance. It was even illegal for white people who sought to freely associate, including marriage, with black people. Eisenhower merely guaranteed that the Brown decision would be properly enforced at Little Rock according to the will of the people.

“Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in “free” America.”

Fake News Story.

”So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.”

No, that would be slavery and Jim Crow laws.

“And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America’s European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.”

There you go again with your Jewish fixation. Anyways, black people were around since the Founding of our country. Asians came in during the 1860’s and 1870’s. Middle Easterners soon followed. Are you THAT ignorant of our history? By the way, there is no such thing as “European racial stocks”. Europeans consist of different ETHNIC groups.

“Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It’s reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans.

Which is other than surprising given the mindset of people at that particular point in time.

“He didn’t have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.”

Pay attention here. I was referencing how Congress, NOT Jay, would have in mind these groups as lawmakers of future generations began to realize that blacks and Indians ought to have citizenship.

“They’re using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government.”

Which, in the end, is their liberty. Except, of course, there is no “destroying or defacing” taking place.

“The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.”

Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

“And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.”

As well people from different races marrying one another, which again is their liberty.

Maybe you have a point.
Maybe you gloss over the fact that your united Americans got to be that way because they promulgated one of the most vicious, unrelenting, cruel and inhumane examples of genocide. Only the modern day state of settler Israel comes close to what the settlers to the US have done. Not even the Spanish Empire was as avaricious and brutal as that of your wonderful ancestors. If that is what you celebrate, fine. But for me? I’d rather not link my heritage to that of yours. Thanks anyway.

gloss over the fact that your united Americans got to be that way because they promulgated one of the most vicious, unrelenting, cruel and inhumane examples of genocide.

well, while I sympathize with the plight of the Amerindian, when it came to "vicious" and "cruel", the white man had nothing on the "Indians". Believe me. I won't repeat the accounts of the horrors they inflicted on white settlers or each other, but they are spine-numbing in their savagery and sheer cruelty.

So, if you measured the value of their cultures by their respective kindness and compassion, then the white man, even with his treachery, lies, theft and yes, genocide, still comes out ahead.

what troubles me is what the white man has done to this once beautiful continent, and what his continued stewardship (or lack of) bodes for these lands. Everywhere he goes his greed despoils the earth under his feet and the oceans under his drill platforms. There seems to be no end in sight to the white man's depredations.

If you look at the men in the Club for Growth or the Chamber of Commerce, you won't find more white looking men.

and yet these are the men, more so even than La Raza that are demanding open borders for massive increases in the sheer numbers of people/consumers/cheap labor/housing unit$... ad infinitum

If left to the white man, N. America will be turned into one giant Walmart/Halliburton off-shore drilling platform/urban $prawl... until there isn't one wild animal or un-mowed blade of grass in sight. The fish in the oceans are already poisoned with mercury or radiated by Fukushima fallout.

Not that the Japanese or Indians (dot) or Africans, Middle Easterners, etc.. are any better, but at least the Amerindian, for all his primitive savagery, kept this continent pristine for his progeny to enjoy for the tens of thousands of years he thrived here. I see what the white man is doing in such a shorted-sighted time frame, and how he's blinded by infinite greed, and I grieve for this land and its denizens. Both human and otherwise.

You can't find food that isn't labeled 'natural', but is basically some kind of fructose, processed poison. Or a patented GMO Frankenstein, injected with growth hormones and antibiotics and forced to live their lives in cages where they can't even turn around, or socialize, or live as animals are designed and supposed to live. Nope, not here in the good ol' U$ of A, where turning the oceans and land into barren dead zones and the farms into corporate, dystopian nightmares for the animals are just a trial run for how they're going to exploit their bipedal farm animals more efficiently.

I go to some as yet untouched place of pristine natural beauty, and realize that it's doomed to foresting or oil exploration, or development, and I heave inside. It's just so damn mindless!

The Koch brothers don't need massive third world immigration to make billion$. They already have billions! What is it about the black heart of an open-borders billionaire that would cause them to lose all sense of grace or virtue? Why is it that the more wealth these avaricious scum accumulate, the more greed-crazed they become?!

The earth and its ecology is finite, (with a f ) The greed in the human heart is infinite. Like power for a psychopath, the greed of some men (and women) is a black hole, and there isn't a galaxy of planets and stars and everything else that will ever fill it. It can't be filled.. that is its nature, and why I'm saddened by the trajectory that we humans (white, black, and everything in between) have set in motion for this singular rock, perhaps the only one of its kind. (certainly the only one our progeny will ever know)

We don't have to right to do what we're doing. It's the ultimate sin, to see us humans mindlessly despoiling this land and this planet and wiping out species after species and entire oceans and continents in a mindless orgy of greed run amok.

What is a nation? I am not sure, but it is not static, it should be dynamic and change like anything else. Renan’s nineteenth century definition needs adjustment in the era of globalization. Imperialism, war, technology, trade, and ideas have allied to create a global village.

We are going to have a world federation at some point. Actually, the gods have already made us experiment with federalism and multiculturalism in North America, a corner of the word where constitutions are supreme. (The village needs a constitution(s) more than anything else.) There is no tribe in the world that does not have families in North America. The future of the world is reflected in the US, Canada or Switzerland. Countries such as Poland, Hungary, or Israel are retrogrades.

At the same time we have two types of nationalism unleashed. The first is small country nationalism such as that of Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia, Biafra, and Tibet. These are not anti-globalization, actually they are pro; as small economies they need the world. Like the nations that were born when Yugoslavia and USSR ended, they hearken to be members of bigger entities. Their nationalism has to do with history, oppression, or just some minor discomfort they feel in their local arrangement.

The second type of nationalism also known as populism is anti-globalization. It is normal to resist the coming of a new era. But, they are unlikely to win in the long run. These type of nationalism shows its strength in big countries: US, UK, Russia and France. Paradoxically, these were/are imperialist countries, i.e., globalists of a violent kind even as nationalists. Some of the issues raised presently by the populists are valid, but they can be addressed within a reformed globalization.

We are stuck with the global village. What is required is innovative institutions that would make the village livable for everyone. Next human project: space travel.

I think Pat already answered this question a few years ago when he observed that half the country hates the other half and one half of the nation reveres our history and traditions while the other half reviles them. Nothing has changed since then and if fact we're starting to see things slowly escalate to threats, fisticuffs and even a few shootings.

So no, we are not one nation and never will be again. Moreover, white people in America are no longer one people. On one side you have the racial self loathing, neo-Bolshevik, Bernie Sanders worshipping freaks like Reality Winner, James Hodgkinson and their sympathizers and enablers while on the other you have the basket of deplorables, or whites who don't want to become a minority and who despise political correctness, SJW's and the radical leftism that's eating away at our institutions like a cancer.

Economic prosperity, school vouchers, tax cuts, more minority set asides, single payer health care and syrupy rhetoric about togetherness, loving one another, and all bleeding red have lost their currency in buying short term peace between the many disparate and mutually antagonistic groups. Partition along racial and political lines is an idea whose time has come.

I am afraid Rurik may be right. At some point I believe the United States will be rendered asunder—-hopefully by peaceful means but by violent ones if necessary. Hopefully the reasonable leaders of the various racial groups can sit down and work out some sort of confederation plan where each racial group has its own autonomous state, with the Blacks in the Deep South, non White Hispanics in the southwest and extreme Southern California, the rest of California divided between the Oriental races, yellow and brown, and the rest of the U.S. reserved for White people and Amerindians. The Whites might also have to sub-divide their territory with conservative Whites in the West, Mid West and South and the leftists concentrated in the Northeast. Each race would have complete internal control of their own affairs, but a representative government in Washington controlled by White loyalists and patriots would make the federal laws regarding immigration, trade, defense and foreign affairs with some input from non Europeans. The military would be “multi-racial” but only stationed on our borders or in strategic bases abroad and led by mostly White officers and civilians. The Blacks and Hispanics might require some economic aid and technical assistance from the Whites to help run their ethno states and so be it—-if it buys America peace and keeps at least part of it a White, European, Western, Christian republic whose base is an Anglo-Saxon, English speaking, Protestant society with religious and civil freedoms guaranteed for all. The alternatives are a horrendous race war between the various colors and nationalities which would result in the U.S. becoming another Yugoslavia or Lebanon or worse yet degenerate into a Third World, mongrel country with a tiny White elite and the population divided between only the poor and the rich and their lackeys as many Latin American nations are today. This would be literally death in life and a sad end and endless night for what was once a model, an example, a shining city on a hill that the rest of the world envied and emulated. A day of reckoning peaceful or otherwise is looming. I pray we choose wisely.

You make some very good points here. I don't know if this separation can be done cleanly, but I know civil war would be absolutely horrendous given what the first one was like and the destructive capabilities of the military hardware today. Add onto it a racial component and you are talking the breakup of Yugoslavia on steroids.

Maybe this was all a good experiment, but this hyper-individualism just may not be sustainable and the pendulum needs to swing the other way regarding groupings and collectives.

I certainly hope cooler heads will prevail.

Peace.

Note: As an aside, I used to play this game when I was younger called Crimson Skies - it had imagined a break-up of the US along various factions in the 1930-1940s after the stock market crash - interesting thing to imagine:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f0/9d/09/f09d097f86f5e39764aa6631961ed48f.jpg

"Hopefully the reasonable leaders of the various racial groups can sit down and work out some sort of confederation plan..."

Who are these "reasonable leaders"? Why should everyday Americans regardless of race submit to this "vision"? What would happen if people refuse to move, that they are happy living where they are at? How would this process even work? Why do "white loyalists and patriots" get to make the laws or lead the military? Who are even this special group of people?

See, you make this proposal, but there are several questions left unanswered.

"The alternatives are a horrendous race war between the various colors and nationalities which would result in the U.S. becoming another Yugoslavia or Lebanon or worse yet degenerate into a Third World, mongrel country with a tiny White elite and the population divided between only the poor and the rich and their lackeys as many Latin American nations are today."

Why do you think that the different races will inevitably fight against one another in a bloody war? Will you be front and center, or in the back, if this event occurs?

The English intellectual tradition has been labeled the “analytic” school in contrast to the German continental “speculative” school. They represent two different modes of thought which, because of their different methods, automatically entail different outcomes. (This is a simplification, but a useful one.)

Bertrand Russel tried to construct a coherent world view that was based on what he called “logical atomism”. In it, one starts from a specified basic unit and then combines and compiles these into ordered wholes by imposing a Rule (in today’s lingo, an algorithm) that governs their interaction and interrelationship.

So, for example, democracy is the relationship between atomistic citizens as mediated by rules of association. This approach yields a society akin to a sporting contest; today’s “proposition nation”.

Germany, the home to Gestalt psychology, saw things differently. The speculative Germans held that the “Truth is the Whole” and that the whole is something superior to a simple amalgamation of elements.

As an analogy, the English analytic tradition would understand the behavior of iron filings on a sheet of paper situated over a magnet by examining the relations between any two individual filings, how when we disturb one filing this creates a moment or torque that acts upon its neighbor etc.

The German school would understand the behavior of any individual filing in terms of the larger field within which it is situated. For the Germans, the individual cannot be considered apart from the greater whole from which it draws sustenance and which gives it its ordered meaning. Examples of thinkers in this tradition include Plato, Aristotle with his Teleology, Hegel, Bismarck and Hitler.

Today’s Anglo-Atlanticist/Zionist intellectual (which includes many thinkers on this site) believe that one can isolate a specific trait–say intelligence–and create a wealthier, healthier society simply by importing intelligent people–however diverse–who exhibit that particular trait. Against this the Gestalt school believes that the genius of a people resides not in individuals per se, but in the community of a people as a whole. They would argue that the exact mechanism of inheriting intelligence is not completely understood by the Atlanticist and that the analytic approach employs an oversimplified model which is certain to lead to errors with disastrous consequences. They would argue that the gene pool is an Entity with a capital E, Jayman notwithstanding.

As ethological studies have demonstrated, a lone baboon is a dead baboon. The viability of baboons moving across the savannah lies in the Gestalt, the arrangement, the geometry, the Form, the coherence of its tribe.

Both schools of thought have their points, but their respective answers to Pat’s question would differ. To the Atlanticist, the answer is “Yes”, America is a Nation because it has a rule of law that governs the relations between its atomistic citizens”. But from the vantage point of a German or Aristotelian, the answer must be “No, America is not a Nation”, because it lacks a coherent identity, the soil of history in which its citizens feel rooted is being desecrated and the symbols which point towards a transcendental meaning that gives a larger purpose to their isolated lives are being eradicated.

Study of the behavior of electrons in atomic and molecular structures lends support to the Gestalt school. Patterns Rule. A single alteration in energy state of one electron results in an instantaneous shift in the entire configuration in a wholistic manner.

Maybe you have a point.Maybe you gloss over the fact that your united Americans got to be that way because they promulgated one of the most vicious, unrelenting, cruel and inhumane examples of genocide. Only the modern day state of settler Israel comes close to what the settlers to the US have done. Not even the Spanish Empire was as avaricious and brutal as that of your wonderful ancestors. If that is what you celebrate, fine. But for me? I'd rather not link my heritage to that of yours. Thanks anyway.

gloss over the fact that your united Americans got to be that way because they promulgated one of the most vicious, unrelenting, cruel and inhumane examples of genocide.

well, while I sympathize with the plight of the Amerindian, when it came to “vicious” and “cruel”, the white man had nothing on the “Indians”. Believe me. I won’t repeat the accounts of the horrors they inflicted on white settlers or each other, but they are spine-numbing in their savagery and sheer cruelty.

So, if you measured the value of their cultures by their respective kindness and compassion, then the white man, even with his treachery, lies, theft and yes, genocide, still comes out ahead.

what troubles me is what the white man has done to this once beautiful continent, and what his continued stewardship (or lack of) bodes for these lands. Everywhere he goes his greed despoils the earth under his feet and the oceans under his drill platforms. There seems to be no end in sight to the white man’s depredations.

If you look at the men in the Club for Growth or the Chamber of Commerce, you won’t find more white looking men.

and yet these are the men, more so even than La Raza that are demanding open borders for massive increases in the sheer numbers of people/consumers/cheap labor/housing unit$… ad infinitum

If left to the white man, N. America will be turned into one giant Walmart/Halliburton off-shore drilling platform/urban $prawl… until there isn’t one wild animal or un-mowed blade of grass in sight. The fish in the oceans are already poisoned with mercury or radiated by Fukushima fallout.

Not that the Japanese or Indians (dot) or Africans, Middle Easterners, etc.. are any better, but at least the Amerindian, for all his primitive savagery, kept this continent pristine for his progeny to enjoy for the tens of thousands of years he thrived here. I see what the white man is doing in such a shorted-sighted time frame, and how he’s blinded by infinite greed, and I grieve for this land and its denizens. Both human and otherwise.

You can’t find food that isn’t labeled ‘natural’, but is basically some kind of fructose, processed poison. Or a patented GMO Frankenstein, injected with growth hormones and antibiotics and forced to live their lives in cages where they can’t even turn around, or socialize, or live as animals are designed and supposed to live. Nope, not here in the good ol’ U$ of A, where turning the oceans and land into barren dead zones and the farms into corporate, dystopian nightmares for the animals are just a trial run for how they’re going to exploit their bipedal farm animals more efficiently.

I go to some as yet untouched place of pristine natural beauty, and realize that it’s doomed to foresting or oil exploration, or development, and I heave inside. It’s just so damn mindless!

The Koch brothers don’t need massive third world immigration to make billion$. They already have billions! What is it about the black heart of an open-borders billionaire that would cause them to lose all sense of grace or virtue? Why is it that the more wealth these avaricious scum accumulate, the more greed-crazed they become?!

The earth and its ecology is finite, (with a f ) The greed in the human heart is infinite. Like power for a psychopath, the greed of some men (and women) is a black hole, and there isn’t a galaxy of planets and stars and everything else that will ever fill it. It can’t be filled.. that is its nature, and why I’m saddened by the trajectory that we humans (white, black, and everything in between) have set in motion for this singular rock, perhaps the only one of its kind. (certainly the only one our progeny will ever know)

We don’t have to right to do what we’re doing. It’s the ultimate sin, to see us humans mindlessly despoiling this land and this planet and wiping out species after species and entire oceans and continents in a mindless orgy of greed run amok.

That is patently false. Refer to Mr. Kratman’s argument that I linked to. There are several definitions of “posterity”.

Kratman is a science fiction writer with an opinion. But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned "our Posterity" in the preamble. Only that he believed it's inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.

At the time, these attitudes were generally accepted. However, attitudes change. It does not mean their initial thoughts on the matter are the standard bearer moving forward.

Attitudes didn't change naturally. It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race. Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector. Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in "free" America. So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.

And the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to change that criteria by way of law or by way of constitutional amendment.

And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America's European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.

He had many addresses. Which one are you specifically referring to?

The one at the beginning of Buchanan's article. “One united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It's reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans. He didn't have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.

That only "Free, white persons" qualified for citizenship in the 1790 nationality act tells me the framers and the first Congresses were open to most non-English European ethnic groups. Otherwise it would have read "Free white persons of English descent". Don't forget that many English loyal to the Crown were expelled to Canada following the war, so the founders didn't think all Englishmen were equal.

Second, these groups are exercising their First Amendment right, so clearly they are up to the task.

They're using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government. So they're up to the task of destroying and defacing what earlier generations of white Americans worked so hard to build. The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.

Third, you do realize that Vox Day clearly stated that even non-English are not “up to the task”. How would you respond to his position?

Don't know and would need to read his article, but given that many non-English European ethnic groups have served with distinction in the armed forces, the government and private sector and have been loyal to the Constitution I'd say he's probably wrong. And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.

I am afraid Rurik may be right. At some point I believe the United States will be rendered asunder----hopefully by peaceful means but by violent ones if necessary. Hopefully the reasonable leaders of the various racial groups can sit down and work out some sort of confederation plan where each racial group has its own autonomous state, with the Blacks in the Deep South, non White Hispanics in the southwest and extreme Southern California, the rest of California divided between the Oriental races, yellow and brown, and the rest of the U.S. reserved for White people and Amerindians. The Whites might also have to sub-divide their territory with conservative Whites in the West, Mid West and South and the leftists concentrated in the Northeast. Each race would have complete internal control of their own affairs, but a representative government in Washington controlled by White loyalists and patriots would make the federal laws regarding immigration, trade, defense and foreign affairs with some input from non Europeans. The military would be "multi-racial" but only stationed on our borders or in strategic bases abroad and led by mostly White officers and civilians. The Blacks and Hispanics might require some economic aid and technical assistance from the Whites to help run their ethno states and so be it----if it buys America peace and keeps at least part of it a White, European, Western, Christian republic whose base is an Anglo-Saxon, English speaking, Protestant society with religious and civil freedoms guaranteed for all. The alternatives are a horrendous race war between the various colors and nationalities which would result in the U.S. becoming another Yugoslavia or Lebanon or worse yet degenerate into a Third World, mongrel country with a tiny White elite and the population divided between only the poor and the rich and their lackeys as many Latin American nations are today. This would be literally death in life and a sad end and endless night for what was once a model, an example, a shining city on a hill that the rest of the world envied and emulated. A day of reckoning peaceful or otherwise is looming. I pray we choose wisely.

Hey SeparateNations,

You make some very good points here. I don’t know if this separation can be done cleanly, but I know civil war would be absolutely horrendous given what the first one was like and the destructive capabilities of the military hardware today. Add onto it a racial component and you are talking the breakup of Yugoslavia on steroids.

Maybe this was all a good experiment, but this hyper-individualism just may not be sustainable and the pendulum needs to swing the other way regarding groupings and collectives.

I certainly hope cooler heads will prevail.

Peace.

Note: As an aside, I used to play this game when I was younger called Crimson Skies – it had imagined a break-up of the US along various factions in the 1930-1940s after the stock market crash – interesting thing to imagine:

I think the proposals by poster "SeparateNations" could work and is better than our current state of affairs. But the central government in D.C. would need to willingly ceded some power to regions and states and we truly have a drunk on power monster on our hands, so I don't envision that. If the founders could have seen what they birthed I think they would have surrendered to the British.

It could take 5-10 years to hammer out details and effect population transfers around the nation, just compensation for property, etc. In the interim people should have freedom of association when it comes to neighborhoods, schools and most workplaces. This would defuse racial tensions and prevent violence while things are being sorted out.

Too many innocent civilians get caught in the cross fire in the event of a hot civil war so I'd rather do things the easy way. Civil war may seem romantic in the abstract but the reality is brutal, bloody and ugly without exception. There would be a lot of heartbreak and grief.

Since our central government refuses to deal with domestic problems honestly and in good faith I fear the worst could come to pass in the future.

US may be divided but it seems to be uniting under Homomania or Queertianity, the neoligion funded and promoted by Jews.

Now, even Catholics support 'gay marriage' by a super-majority. Yes, even Catholics believe venerable bio-moral institution of marriage should be conflated with homo fecal penetration and tranny genital mutilation.

And even Trump justified his 'Muslim Ban' on protecting homos in night clubs grinding their asses.

So, divided as the nation is, most seem united on the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos.

Everyone is for Israel, which should be called Sodomia as it is big on homo degeneracy. Everyone is for Magic Negroes. Everyone worships MLK and lionizes black athletes and rappers. And one thing Dems and Repubs are agreed on is that 'racism' is the worst thing, and of course 'racism' only has meaning in relation to blacks. After all, Trump could get away with bashing Mexicans, Muslims, Iranians, and Chinese. And now, everyone is for the holy homo. Where is the opposition to homos? GOP knows that Jews are behind homos, and since GOP worships Jews, it cannot effectively oppose the homo agenda.

Now, US-UK-France-Germany-Ireland-etc have 'gay marriage'. Even conservatives rarely denounce this rot. Indeed, the opposition was totally silent as the cancer of homo agenda spread through the US.

And where was the resistance to tearing down Confederate monuments? Trump said nothing. GOP did nothing. History was erased while this nation elevates gangster rappers, globalist imperialists, and homo degenerates.

(Given many northern generals were involved in 'genocide' of Indians, I suppose their monuments should come down too.)

There is no real divide in the US. Indeed, Trump won whereas Buchanan's presidential run went nowhere because, whereas Buchanan stood for real moral principles, Trump was all about bluster and style. He wasn't really for any moral position. And that's why he was appealing to many Americans who are immoral or amoral. Even many Trump voters are into 'gay marriage' and that nonsense.

This is a degenerate nation.

Anyway, the reason why the nation seems divided is because Jews control the media. And they hate Trump and what he stands for: a nascent awakening of gentile majority consciousness. So, they've been hyping all this craziness.If not for Jewish control of media and its endless hysteria about Trumpenfuhrer, most of the furor would have died down by now.

In 3 decades or less than that this Jewish tribe came to dominate both the European who once had organized the pogrom and made Holocaust possible. The tribe came to dominate USA – Canada-Australia who did not persecute them but who were religiously made out of same cloth that had persecuted the tribe for years . How did they do it?

There is precedence to this development. After the temple was razed in 1is AD by Romans, the tribe secured the right of not paying religious services to Roman emperors as Gods , not making any offerings and keep the tribal rituals. Not only that despite close similarity and common linkage to Christianity , this tribe managed to portray Christianity as religion of atheism in the eyes of Rome. The tribes slept with the top notch Roman in military and administration, intermarried and few of them even were queens. The tribes kept on piling up pressure ( modern day Islamophobia created by same tribe ) against Christian. They even blamed Pilate for the devastation when it was the tribe who instigated and pressurized the romans to go after Jesus .

The tribes brought diversity and poor immigrants and rootless unassimilated to the empire and created fissures . Constantine was forced to address it because it was threatening the existence of the empire.

It seems America has to impose some universal values to transcend the deepening schism and protect itself from destruction.

That is patently false. Refer to Mr. Kratman’s argument that I linked to. There are several definitions of “posterity”.

Kratman is a science fiction writer with an opinion. But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned "our Posterity" in the preamble. Only that he believed it's inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.

At the time, these attitudes were generally accepted. However, attitudes change. It does not mean their initial thoughts on the matter are the standard bearer moving forward.

Attitudes didn't change naturally. It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race. Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector. Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in "free" America. So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.

And the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to change that criteria by way of law or by way of constitutional amendment.

And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America's European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.

He had many addresses. Which one are you specifically referring to?

The one at the beginning of Buchanan's article. “One united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It's reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans. He didn't have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.

That only "Free, white persons" qualified for citizenship in the 1790 nationality act tells me the framers and the first Congresses were open to most non-English European ethnic groups. Otherwise it would have read "Free white persons of English descent". Don't forget that many English loyal to the Crown were expelled to Canada following the war, so the founders didn't think all Englishmen were equal.

Second, these groups are exercising their First Amendment right, so clearly they are up to the task.

They're using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government. So they're up to the task of destroying and defacing what earlier generations of white Americans worked so hard to build. The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.

Third, you do realize that Vox Day clearly stated that even non-English are not “up to the task”. How would you respond to his position?

Don't know and would need to read his article, but given that many non-English European ethnic groups have served with distinction in the armed forces, the government and private sector and have been loyal to the Constitution I'd say he's probably wrong. And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.

“Kratman is a science fiction writer with an opinion.”

You mean a well-crafted position that takes Vox Day’s theory to task.

“But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned “our Posterity” in the preamble.”

There was no need to argue that point on his part, since Kratman stated the Constitution has the Amendment process to address such matters.

“Only that he believed it’s inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.”

As well as non-Europeans.

“Attitudes didn’t change naturally.”

Another patently false statement on your part. These attitudes changed gradually over time, as increasing numbers of Americans from difference races and ethnic groups realized they had more in common than previously thought and began to challenge racial and ethnic stereotypes. Please stop being disingenuous.

“It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race.”

Which was the culmination of those changing attitudes that happened organically.

“Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector.”

Had the Southrons simply abided by the Plessy decision, there may not have been the need for whites and blacks to go to court to secure their liberties. Remember, the Court stated “separate but equal”. Except that Southrons got greedy and developed a political and economic system designed to maintain their dominance. It was even illegal for white people who sought to freely associate, including marriage, with black people. Eisenhower merely guaranteed that the Brown decision would be properly enforced at Little Rock according to the will of the people.

“Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in “free” America.”

Fake News Story.

”So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.”

No, that would be slavery and Jim Crow laws.

“And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America’s European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.”

There you go again with your Jewish fixation. Anyways, black people were around since the Founding of our country. Asians came in during the 1860’s and 1870’s. Middle Easterners soon followed. Are you THAT ignorant of our history? By the way, there is no such thing as “European racial stocks”. Europeans consist of different ETHNIC groups.

“Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It’s reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans.

Which is other than surprising given the mindset of people at that particular point in time.

“He didn’t have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.”

Pay attention here. I was referencing how Congress, NOT Jay, would have in mind these groups as lawmakers of future generations began to realize that blacks and Indians ought to have citizenship.

“They’re using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government.”

Which, in the end, is their liberty. Except, of course, there is no “destroying or defacing” taking place.

“The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.”

Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

“And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.”

As well people from different races marrying one another, which again is their liberty.

This is true - many from Ottoman lands (Azeris, Arabs, Jews, Turks, Arabs), and from what I remember reading, they were legally considered 'White' in accordance with local state anti-miscegenation laws of the time.

As well people from different races marrying one another, which again is their liberty.

I found this statistic very, very interesting. Apparently, a white wife/black husband are twice as likely to divorce than white/white while a white husband/black wife are almost 45% less likely to divorce than white/white.

http://www.divorcesource.com/blog/interracial-marriage-and-divorce/

The cultural and male/female differences actually seem to have a significantly measurable disadvantage in one kind of pairing while having a significant advantage the opposite way.

Try re-reading his article. The closest he comes to stating that non-whites could theoretically be included in "our posterity" is his mention of "half breeds from Indian-settler matches". Again, you're like a SCOTUS justice who sees and reads things in written content that don't exist.

Another patently false statement on your part. These attitudes changed gradually over time......

False and everyone but hard headed ideologues and dissemblers like Corvy seem to know it. The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution from above in the form of onerous laws that abrogated freedom of association and the threat of brute government force for non-compliance as well as TV shows like Archie Bunker that depict working class whites with illiberal attitudes on race as ignorant and anachronistic. Sure, outwardly it appears white attitudes have changed but in most cases their hearts aren't in it and most prefer to retire in the evenings to the least diverse neighborhoods they can find and afford.

You can find countless articles bemoaning how America is still largely segregated even after destroying the Constitution and turning the nation upside down and inside out since 1965. Most people still prefer the company of their own kind. Only Corvy likes to pretend otherwise.

Fake News Story.

Ok, so if white congressman and senators start advocating for white racial interests like black, Latino and Jewish politicians advocate for their people there won't be a media uproar and charges of white supremacy and neo-Nazism? Remember the fallout when Rand Paul correctly said that civil rights legislation was unconstitutional? Or how about Katie McHugh who was recently fired from Breitbart.com for stating that there would be no terrorism if Muslims were disallowed from coming to the West? Or how about the assistant district attorney who attended an American Renaissance conference around 2008 and got outed by the Jewish busybodies at the SPLC and subsequently fired? The haven't outed anyone from NAACP or La Raza and in fact morally support those groups. The SPLC only attacks white people who don't hate themselves.

The list is endless. You're just afraid to look since you'll be forced to fall on your own sword.

Since you're a true blue believer in racial diversity tell us about your racially diverse and vibrant neighborhood and how it's enriched your life. I'll bet your hood is 25% white, 25% black, 25% Latino and 25% Asian since you're so committed to diversity. You probably have cook outs, block parties and interracial orgies all the time.

In 3 decades or less than that this Jewish tribe came to dominate both the European who once had organized the pogrom and made Holocaust possible. The tribe came to dominate USA – Canada-Australia who did not persecute them but who were religiously made out of same cloth that had persecuted the tribe for years . How did they do it?

There is precedence to this development. After the temple was razed in 1is AD by Romans, the tribe secured the right of not paying religious services to Roman emperors as Gods , not making any offerings and keep the tribal rituals. Not only that despite close similarity and common linkage to Christianity , this tribe managed to portray Christianity as religion of atheism in the eyes of Rome. The tribes slept with the top notch Roman in military and administration, intermarried and few of them even were queens. The tribes kept on piling up pressure ( modern day Islamophobia created by same tribe ) against Christian. They even blamed Pilate for the devastation when it was the tribe who instigated and pressurized the romans to go after Jesus .

The tribes brought diversity and poor immigrants and rootless unassimilated to the empire and created fissures . Constantine was forced to address it because it was threatening the existence of the empire.

It seems America has to impose some universal values to transcend the deepening schism and protect itself from destruction.

I am afraid Rurik may be right. At some point I believe the United States will be rendered asunder----hopefully by peaceful means but by violent ones if necessary. Hopefully the reasonable leaders of the various racial groups can sit down and work out some sort of confederation plan where each racial group has its own autonomous state, with the Blacks in the Deep South, non White Hispanics in the southwest and extreme Southern California, the rest of California divided between the Oriental races, yellow and brown, and the rest of the U.S. reserved for White people and Amerindians. The Whites might also have to sub-divide their territory with conservative Whites in the West, Mid West and South and the leftists concentrated in the Northeast. Each race would have complete internal control of their own affairs, but a representative government in Washington controlled by White loyalists and patriots would make the federal laws regarding immigration, trade, defense and foreign affairs with some input from non Europeans. The military would be "multi-racial" but only stationed on our borders or in strategic bases abroad and led by mostly White officers and civilians. The Blacks and Hispanics might require some economic aid and technical assistance from the Whites to help run their ethno states and so be it----if it buys America peace and keeps at least part of it a White, European, Western, Christian republic whose base is an Anglo-Saxon, English speaking, Protestant society with religious and civil freedoms guaranteed for all. The alternatives are a horrendous race war between the various colors and nationalities which would result in the U.S. becoming another Yugoslavia or Lebanon or worse yet degenerate into a Third World, mongrel country with a tiny White elite and the population divided between only the poor and the rich and their lackeys as many Latin American nations are today. This would be literally death in life and a sad end and endless night for what was once a model, an example, a shining city on a hill that the rest of the world envied and emulated. A day of reckoning peaceful or otherwise is looming. I pray we choose wisely.

“Hopefully the reasonable leaders of the various racial groups can sit down and work out some sort of confederation plan…”

Who are these “reasonable leaders”? Why should everyday Americans regardless of race submit to this “vision”? What would happen if people refuse to move, that they are happy living where they are at? How would this process even work? Why do “white loyalists and patriots” get to make the laws or lead the military? Who are even this special group of people?

See, you make this proposal, but there are several questions left unanswered.

“The alternatives are a horrendous race war between the various colors and nationalities which would result in the U.S. becoming another Yugoslavia or Lebanon or worse yet degenerate into a Third World, mongrel country with a tiny White elite and the population divided between only the poor and the rich and their lackeys as many Latin American nations are today.”

Why do you think that the different races will inevitably fight against one another in a bloody war? Will you be front and center, or in the back, if this event occurs?

“But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned “our Posterity” in the preamble.”

There was no need to argue that point on his part, since Kratman stated the Constitution has the Amendment process to address such matters.

“Only that he believed it’s inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.”

As well as non-Europeans.

“Attitudes didn’t change naturally.”

Another patently false statement on your part. These attitudes changed gradually over time, as increasing numbers of Americans from difference races and ethnic groups realized they had more in common than previously thought and began to challenge racial and ethnic stereotypes. Please stop being disingenuous.

“It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race.”

Which was the culmination of those changing attitudes that happened organically.

“Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector.”

Had the Southrons simply abided by the Plessy decision, there may not have been the need for whites and blacks to go to court to secure their liberties. Remember, the Court stated “separate but equal”. Except that Southrons got greedy and developed a political and economic system designed to maintain their dominance. It was even illegal for white people who sought to freely associate, including marriage, with black people. Eisenhower merely guaranteed that the Brown decision would be properly enforced at Little Rock according to the will of the people.

“Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in “free” America.”

Fake News Story.

”So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.”

No, that would be slavery and Jim Crow laws.

“And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America’s European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.”

There you go again with your Jewish fixation. Anyways, black people were around since the Founding of our country. Asians came in during the 1860’s and 1870’s. Middle Easterners soon followed. Are you THAT ignorant of our history? By the way, there is no such thing as “European racial stocks”. Europeans consist of different ETHNIC groups.

“Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It’s reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans.

Which is other than surprising given the mindset of people at that particular point in time.

“He didn’t have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.”

Pay attention here. I was referencing how Congress, NOT Jay, would have in mind these groups as lawmakers of future generations began to realize that blacks and Indians ought to have citizenship.

“They’re using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government.”

Which, in the end, is their liberty. Except, of course, there is no “destroying or defacing” taking place.

“The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.”

Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

“And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.”

As well people from different races marrying one another, which again is their liberty.

Hey Corvinus,

Middle Easterners soon followed.

This is true – many from Ottoman lands (Azeris, Arabs, Jews, Turks, Arabs), and from what I remember reading, they were legally considered ‘White’ in accordance with local state anti-miscegenation laws of the time.

As well people from different races marrying one another, which again is their liberty.

I found this statistic very, very interesting. Apparently, a white wife/black husband are twice as likely to divorce than white/white while a white husband/black wife are almost 45% less likely to divorce than white/white.

"Lebanese", which is what they were usually called at the time (1920s?), are white by most standards; generally they assimilated pretty seamlessly, especially since they were mostly Christian (Azeris, though? In large numbers?).

With respect to interracial-marriage rates, class and income should probably be taken into account. I can think of several plausible narratives, but I'm not about to test them.

This is true - many from Ottoman lands (Azeris, Arabs, Jews, Turks, Arabs), and from what I remember reading, they were legally considered 'White' in accordance with local state anti-miscegenation laws of the time.

As well people from different races marrying one another, which again is their liberty.

I found this statistic very, very interesting. Apparently, a white wife/black husband are twice as likely to divorce than white/white while a white husband/black wife are almost 45% less likely to divorce than white/white.

http://www.divorcesource.com/blog/interracial-marriage-and-divorce/

The cultural and male/female differences actually seem to have a significantly measurable disadvantage in one kind of pairing while having a significant advantage the opposite way.

Things that make you go hmmm...

Peace.

“Lebanese”, which is what they were usually called at the time (1920s?), are white by most standards; generally they assimilated pretty seamlessly, especially since they were mostly Christian (Azeris, though? In large numbers?).

With respect to interracial-marriage rates, class and income should probably be taken into account. I can think of several plausible narratives, but I’m not about to test them.

Yup. Nope. Collectively these non-European whites did make up a few hundred thousand from what I remember.

The Muslims assimilated pretty hard too:Now 80, Hassan Abdallah is one of the few Muslims still living in the area. He says by the 1940s no one was using the mosque any more. In the 1970s, the younger members of the community - grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the original immigrants from Lebanon -- voted to tear it down.https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-10-20-voa14/293702.html

With respect to interracial-marriage rates, class and income should probably be taken into account.

Indeed - and apparently white men & black women seem to have found a fairly good combination of what works above other mixtures - and a statistically high one at that. Good for them - we can use more stable marriages.

The funny thing is - if I was to have taking a blind guess at it, I would have guessed this would have been the most unstable combo... (sigh) shows what I know.

There is no ethnos called, quote, 'Azeri'.
It's a made up word (...made up by Stalin's crew).
Up until about 1930s or so Caspian Turks were simply called Tatars or Muslims.
There are two northern regions of Iran/Persia called Azarbaijan.
Stalin's crew came up with the fake ethnos 'Azeri' to manufacture of future claim to Northern Iranian provinces of East and West Azarbaijan.

Azarbaijnis are Turkic speaking ethnic Persians.
The indigenous peoples of the fake state of Azerbaijan Republic, such as Talish, are also Iranian peoples. They are massively oppressed by the Turk nomad invaders from East and Central Asia.

"Lebanese", which is what they were usually called at the time (1920s?), are white by most standards; generally they assimilated pretty seamlessly, especially since they were mostly Christian (Azeris, though? In large numbers?).

With respect to interracial-marriage rates, class and income should probably be taken into account. I can think of several plausible narratives, but I'm not about to test them.

Azeris, though? In large numbers?

Yup. Nope. Collectively these non-European whites did make up a few hundred thousand from what I remember.

The Muslims assimilated pretty hard too:
Now 80, Hassan Abdallah is one of the few Muslims still living in the area. He says by the 1940s no one was using the mosque any more. In the 1970s, the younger members of the community – grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the original immigrants from Lebanon — voted to tear it down.

With respect to interracial-marriage rates, class and income should probably be taken into account.

Indeed – and apparently white men & black women seem to have found a fairly good combination of what works above other mixtures – and a statistically high one at that. Good for them – we can use more stable marriages.

The funny thing is – if I was to have taking a blind guess at it, I would have guessed this would have been the most unstable combo… (sigh) shows what I know.

"Lebanese", which is what they were usually called at the time (1920s?), are white by most standards; generally they assimilated pretty seamlessly, especially since they were mostly Christian (Azeris, though? In large numbers?).

With respect to interracial-marriage rates, class and income should probably be taken into account. I can think of several plausible narratives, but I'm not about to test them.

{…Azeris….}

There is no ethnos called, quote, ‘Azeri’.
It’s a made up word (…made up by Stalin’s crew).
Up until about 1930s or so Caspian Turks were simply called Tatars or Muslims.
There are two northern regions of Iran/Persia called Azarbaijan.
Stalin’s crew came up with the fake ethnos ‘Azeri’ to manufacture of future claim to Northern Iranian provinces of East and West Azarbaijan.

Azarbaijnis are Turkic speaking ethnic Persians.
The indigenous peoples of the fake state of Azerbaijan Republic, such as Talish, are also Iranian peoples. They are massively oppressed by the Turk nomad invaders from East and Central Asia.

“But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned “our Posterity” in the preamble.”

There was no need to argue that point on his part, since Kratman stated the Constitution has the Amendment process to address such matters.

“Only that he believed it’s inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.”

As well as non-Europeans.

“Attitudes didn’t change naturally.”

Another patently false statement on your part. These attitudes changed gradually over time, as increasing numbers of Americans from difference races and ethnic groups realized they had more in common than previously thought and began to challenge racial and ethnic stereotypes. Please stop being disingenuous.

“It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race.”

Which was the culmination of those changing attitudes that happened organically.

“Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector.”

Had the Southrons simply abided by the Plessy decision, there may not have been the need for whites and blacks to go to court to secure their liberties. Remember, the Court stated “separate but equal”. Except that Southrons got greedy and developed a political and economic system designed to maintain their dominance. It was even illegal for white people who sought to freely associate, including marriage, with black people. Eisenhower merely guaranteed that the Brown decision would be properly enforced at Little Rock according to the will of the people.

“Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in “free” America.”

Fake News Story.

”So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.”

No, that would be slavery and Jim Crow laws.

“And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America’s European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.”

There you go again with your Jewish fixation. Anyways, black people were around since the Founding of our country. Asians came in during the 1860’s and 1870’s. Middle Easterners soon followed. Are you THAT ignorant of our history? By the way, there is no such thing as “European racial stocks”. Europeans consist of different ETHNIC groups.

“Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It’s reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans.

Which is other than surprising given the mindset of people at that particular point in time.

“He didn’t have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.”

Pay attention here. I was referencing how Congress, NOT Jay, would have in mind these groups as lawmakers of future generations began to realize that blacks and Indians ought to have citizenship.

“They’re using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government.”

Which, in the end, is their liberty. Except, of course, there is no “destroying or defacing” taking place.

“The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.”

Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

“And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.”

As well people from different races marrying one another, which again is their liberty.

As well as non-Europeans.

Try re-reading his article. The closest he comes to stating that non-whites could theoretically be included in “our posterity” is his mention of “half breeds from Indian-settler matches”. Again, you’re like a SCOTUS justice who sees and reads things in written content that don’t exist.

Another patently false statement on your part. These attitudes changed gradually over time……

False and everyone but hard headed ideologues and dissemblers like Corvy seem to know it. The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution from above in the form of onerous laws that abrogated freedom of association and the threat of brute government force for non-compliance as well as TV shows like Archie Bunker that depict working class whites with illiberal attitudes on race as ignorant and anachronistic. Sure, outwardly it appears white attitudes have changed but in most cases their hearts aren’t in it and most prefer to retire in the evenings to the least diverse neighborhoods they can find and afford.

You can find countless articles bemoaning how America is still largely segregated even after destroying the Constitution and turning the nation upside down and inside out since 1965. Most people still prefer the company of their own kind. Only Corvy likes to pretend otherwise.

Fake News Story.

Ok, so if white congressman and senators start advocating for white racial interests like black, Latino and Jewish politicians advocate for their people there won’t be a media uproar and charges of white supremacy and neo-Nazism? Remember the fallout when Rand Paul correctly said that civil rights legislation was unconstitutional? Or how about Katie McHugh who was recently fired from Breitbart.com for stating that there would be no terrorism if Muslims were disallowed from coming to the West? Or how about the assistant district attorney who attended an American Renaissance conference around 2008 and got outed by the Jewish busybodies at the SPLC and subsequently fired? The haven’t outed anyone from NAACP or La Raza and in fact morally support those groups. The SPLC only attacks white people who don’t hate themselves.

The list is endless. You’re just afraid to look since you’ll be forced to fall on your own sword.

Since you’re a true blue believer in racial diversity tell us about your racially diverse and vibrant neighborhood and how it’s enriched your life. I’ll bet your hood is 25% white, 25% black, 25% Latino and 25% Asian since you’re so committed to diversity. You probably have cook outs, block parties and interracial orgies all the time.

“Try re-reading his article. The closest he comes to stating that non-whites could theoretically be included in “our posterity” is his mention of “half breeds from Indian-settler matches”. Again, you’re like a SCOTUS justice who sees and reads things in written content that don’t exist.”

Man, you are dense. I had already acknowledged John Jay’s attitudes toward exclusion of non-Europeans as potential citizens of the United States. His writing reflected how people felt at that particular moment. However, his position was rendered impotent when the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the immigration criteria AND when the constitutional amendment process was put in place to enable citizenship rights to be afforded to groups previously denied.

“False and everyone but hard headed ideologues and dissemblers like Corvy seem to know it. The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution from above in the form of onerous laws that abrogated freedom of association and the threat of brute government force for non-compliance as well as TV shows like Archie Bunker that depict working class whites with illiberal attitudes on race as ignorant and anachronistic. Sure, outwardly it appears white attitudes have changed but in most cases their hearts aren’t in it and most prefer to retire in the evenings to the least diverse neighborhoods they can find and afford.”

Corrected for accuracy --> The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution due to internal and external forces that happened over the course of a century.

Pray tell, were not those fine southern folks denied their freedom of association who preferred to integrate with the blacks by sanction of custom and law? Were they not denied their rights by way of “onerous laws” and “the threat of brute government force”?

“You can find countless articles bemoaning how America is still largely segregated even after destroying the Constitution and turning the nation upside down and inside out since 1965. “

You can find countless articles bemoaning how America has successfully been moving toward integration since 1965, when constitutional rights were once again protected by the will of the people.

“Most people still prefer the company of their own kind.”

Most people YOU know prefer the company of their own kind.

“Ok, so if white congressman and senators start advocating for white racial interests like black, Latino and Jewish politicians advocate for their people there won’t be a media uproar and charges of white supremacy and neo-Nazism?”

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

“Remember the fallout when Rand Paul correctly said that civil rights legislation was unconstitutional?”

He was speaking from a states rights and property rights perspective as a libertarian.And he was other than correct.

“Or how about Katie McHugh who was recently fired from Breitbart.com for stating that there would be no terrorism if Muslims were disallowed from coming to the West?”“Or how about the assistant district attorney who attended an American Renaissance conference around 2008 and got outed by the Jewish busybodies at the SPLC and subsequently fired?”

In both cases, one in this high profile position has to weigh the potential consequences, positive and negative, of their actions. They are held to different standards when in these capacities.

“Since you’re a true blue believer in racial diversity tell us about your racially diverse and vibrant neighborhood and how it’s enriched your life. I’ll bet your hood is 25% white, 25% black, 25% Latino and 25% Asian since you’re so committed to diversity. You probably have cook outs, block parties and interracial orgies all the time.”

Sans the orgies, I do live in a “vibrant” neighborhood. Several black families, along with a mix of Eastern Europeans, Filipinos, and (gasp) Middle Easterners. We need not worry about lil’ Abdul throwing Molotov cocktails or lil’ Tyrone jacking cars because we are civil to one another.

It comes down to social class--my neighbors live where they do because they can afford it, and they do not want to deal with the “unsavory” element. The more money one has, the more likely one will want to be safe and secure. Wealthy people regardless of race share that sentiment.

"I think the proposals by poster “SeparateNations” could work and is better than our current state of affairs."

No.

"It could take 5-10 years to hammer out details and effect population transfers around the nation, just compensation for property, etc."

How in the world will Congress "hammer out details" when they repeatedly have difficulty getting things done now? Moreover, why would people want to move from their current places of residence? Do they not have freedom of association to remain there? Furthermore, how does one even begin to offer this compensation in light of our debt? What would be considered "fair and just compensation"?

"In the interim people should have freedom of association when it comes to neighborhoods, schools and most workplaces. This would defuse racial tensions and prevent violence while things are being sorted out."

Today, people are free to move to a neighborhood they desire, attend schools of their choice, and decide where to work. But, according to Edmund Burke, “Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself, and he has right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour.” For example, Jim Crow laws showed exactly the impact they had on white-black achievement gaps in education and its resonating impact. Southern states made other than an honest effort during Reconstruction to ensure a quality education for newly freed slaves. Rather, blacks endured decades of neglect when it came to funding, quality of instruction, and infrastructure. Furthermore, 30 states by 1900 had compulsory education laws, with only four southern states obliging. While in those southern states that lacked mandatory schooling and offered blacks and whites an education, clearly the resources were other than equal for blacks, a clear violation of Plessy. Thus, this notion that some people have regarding freedom of association as being unfettered is utter nonsense. Clearly, this situation shows the devastating effects when men trespass upon others for their own favors.

You make some very good points here. I don't know if this separation can be done cleanly, but I know civil war would be absolutely horrendous given what the first one was like and the destructive capabilities of the military hardware today. Add onto it a racial component and you are talking the breakup of Yugoslavia on steroids.

Maybe this was all a good experiment, but this hyper-individualism just may not be sustainable and the pendulum needs to swing the other way regarding groupings and collectives.

I certainly hope cooler heads will prevail.

Peace.

Note: As an aside, I used to play this game when I was younger called Crimson Skies - it had imagined a break-up of the US along various factions in the 1930-1940s after the stock market crash - interesting thing to imagine:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f0/9d/09/f09d097f86f5e39764aa6631961ed48f.jpg

I think the proposals by poster “SeparateNations” could work and is better than our current state of affairs. But the central government in D.C. would need to willingly ceded some power to regions and states and we truly have a drunk on power monster on our hands, so I don’t envision that. If the founders could have seen what they birthed I think they would have surrendered to the British.

It could take 5-10 years to hammer out details and effect population transfers around the nation, just compensation for property, etc. In the interim people should have freedom of association when it comes to neighborhoods, schools and most workplaces. This would defuse racial tensions and prevent violence while things are being sorted out.

Too many innocent civilians get caught in the cross fire in the event of a hot civil war so I’d rather do things the easy way. Civil war may seem romantic in the abstract but the reality is brutal, bloody and ugly without exception. There would be a lot of heartbreak and grief.

Since our central government refuses to deal with domestic problems honestly and in good faith I fear the worst could come to pass in the future.

But the central government in D.C. would need to willingly ceded some power to regions and states and we truly have a drunk on power monster on our hands, so I don’t envision that. If the founders could have seen what they birthed I think they would have surrendered to the British.

"What the founders birthed" was smothered in its cradle in 1861-1865:

https://mises.org/library/freedom-and-federalism-0

Americans — and much of the rest of the world — have been deprived of one of the most important means of establishing and maintaining a free society, namely, federalism or states' rights. It is not just an accident that states' rights have either been relegated to the memory hole, or denigrated as a tool of racists and other miscreants. The Jeffersonian states'-rights tradition was — and is — the key to understanding why Thomas Jefferson believed that the best government is that which governs least, and that a limited constitutional government was indeed possible.

What Are "States' Rights"?

The idea of states' rights is most closely associated with the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and his political heirs. Jefferson himself never entertained the idea that "states have rights," as some of the less educated critics of the idea have claimed. Of course "states" don't have rights. The essence of Jefferson's idea is that if the people are to be the masters rather than the servants of their own government, then they must have some vehicle with which to control that government. That vehicle, in the Jeffersonian tradition, is political communities organized at the state and local level. That is how the people were to monitor, control, discipline, and even abolish, if need be, their own government.

It was Jefferson, after all, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that government's just powers arise only from the consent of the people,

and that whenever the government becomes abusive of the peoples' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the peoples' duty to abolish that government and replace it with another one.

And how were the people to achieve this?

They were to achieve it just as they did when they adopted the Constitution, through political conventions organized by the states.

The states, after all, were considered to be independent nations just as England and France were independent nations. The Declaration of Independence referred to them specifically as "free and independent," independent enough to raise taxes and wage war, just like any other state.

That is why the political heirs of Thomas Jefferson, mid-19th-century Southern Democrats, held statewide political conventions (and popular votes) to decide whether or not they would continue to remain in then voluntary union of the Founding Fathers. Article 7 of the US Constitution explained that the states could join (or not join) the union according to votes taken at state political conventions by representatives of the people (not state legislatures) and, in keeping with the words of the Declaration, they also had a right to vote to secede from the government and create a new one.

Jefferson was not only the author of America's Declaration of Secession from the British Empire; he championed the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws with his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,

[Jefferson] also believed that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution - - -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. . . .

was the cornerstone of the entire document. He was a "strict constructionist" who believed that every effort should be made to force the central government to possess only those powers delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8. Delegated to it by the states, that is. All others are reserved to the states, respectively, and to the people under the Tenth Amendment.

The idea was always that

it is easier for the people to keep an eye on and control politicians the closer they are to them, anda decentralized system of government consisting of numerous states provided American citizens with an escape hatch from tyrannical governments.If Massachusetts created a state theocracy, for example, those who did not want to live under the thumb of Puritan theocrats could escape to Virginia or some other state.

In other words, The People would voluntarily create the regions that conformed to their preferences, by voting with their feet.

Secession or the threat of secession was always intended as a possible means of maintaining both the American union and constitutional government. The idea was that the central government would likely only propose constitutional laws if it understood that unconstitutional laws could lead to secession or nullification. Nullification and the threat thereof were intended to have the same effect.

Lord Acton and Robert E. Lee shared that perspective:

Lord Acton, wrote the following letter to General Robert E. Lee on November 4, 1866, seventeen months after Lee's surrender at Appomattox:

I saw in States' rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic [i.e., the Confederate Constitution] have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly an wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

What Lord Acton is saying here is that he considered it to be a disaster for the entire world that the right of secession was abolished by the war.The 20th century would become the century of consolidated, monopolistic government in Russia, Germany, the United States, and elsewhere, and it was a disaster for humanity. Had the rights of secession and nullification remained in place, and had slavery been abolished peacefully as it had been everywhere else in the world, America would have been a counterexample of decentralized, limited government for the rest of the world.

General Lee understood this. In his December 15, 1866, response to Lord Acton he wrote,

While I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. . . .

This is all a part of America's lost history. The advocates of centralization who were the victors in the War to Prevent Southern Independence rewrote the history of America, as the victors in war always do.

IN CONTRAST, Abraham Lincoln held, and stated in his inaugural address March 4, 1861:

" I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Notice how Lincoln emphasizes the supreme importance of the Central Authority, and its right, even duty, to impose its will upon the People, and the individual states.

That is, Lincoln's perspective exactly upended the intention of the founders/Thomas Jefferson, for whom the sovereign will of the People, and of their local communities/states, was supreme.

History has borne out that Jefferson's view was both the intended view, and the perspective that would have distinguished the US Constitutional system from mere majoritarian democracy, and the view that would have prevented the bloat of power that has enabled the US central gov. to wage war recklessly and destructively.

There is no ethnos called, quote, 'Azeri'.
It's a made up word (...made up by Stalin's crew).
Up until about 1930s or so Caspian Turks were simply called Tatars or Muslims.
There are two northern regions of Iran/Persia called Azarbaijan.
Stalin's crew came up with the fake ethnos 'Azeri' to manufacture of future claim to Northern Iranian provinces of East and West Azarbaijan.

Azarbaijnis are Turkic speaking ethnic Persians.
The indigenous peoples of the fake state of Azerbaijan Republic, such as Talish, are also Iranian peoples. They are massively oppressed by the Turk nomad invaders from East and Central Asia.

The Aliev clan is of Kurdish stock.

Interesting. Apparently the name comes from Media Atropatene, the inhabitants of which were presumably Iranic Medes. Before the USSR, did the people there identify as Turks or Persians? Or both?

{ Before the USSR, did the people there identify as Turks or Persians? Or both?}

I do not know.

But what I know is for decades the indigenous peoples of the area that is the republic of Azerbaijan have been under oppression by non-indigenous Turks: E.g. they are not allowed to speak their native tongues, not allowed to identify themselves e.g. as Talysh, etc. Forcible Turkification.

I think the proposals by poster "SeparateNations" could work and is better than our current state of affairs. But the central government in D.C. would need to willingly ceded some power to regions and states and we truly have a drunk on power monster on our hands, so I don't envision that. If the founders could have seen what they birthed I think they would have surrendered to the British.

It could take 5-10 years to hammer out details and effect population transfers around the nation, just compensation for property, etc. In the interim people should have freedom of association when it comes to neighborhoods, schools and most workplaces. This would defuse racial tensions and prevent violence while things are being sorted out.

Too many innocent civilians get caught in the cross fire in the event of a hot civil war so I'd rather do things the easy way. Civil war may seem romantic in the abstract but the reality is brutal, bloody and ugly without exception. There would be a lot of heartbreak and grief.

Since our central government refuses to deal with domestic problems honestly and in good faith I fear the worst could come to pass in the future.

{….I think they would have surrendered to the British. }

Are you sure?

Thank God, we still don’t have Londonistan and no Islamist-Supremacist mayor of a large city in US: the anti-Christian, anti-West Sharia Sadiq Khan, voted in by Islamized, prostrated British voters.

Americans still maintain some cojones and resist Islamization.
British have completely surrendered to Islamists and have given up.

If the U.S. didn't exist then we couldn't have come to Britain's aid in WWII and they would have been defeated or at least laid low by Germany. So Europe would have remained sane and not gone so wacko liberal which would have rubbed off on the U.K. and it wouldn't be ruled by those who hate their own people and want to reforge their nation with Muslims and Africans.

Interesting. Apparently the name comes from Media Atropatene, the inhabitants of which were presumably Iranic Medes. Before the USSR, did the people there identify as Turks or Persians? Or both?

{ Before the USSR, did the people there identify as Turks or Persians? Or both?}

I do not know.

But what I know is for decades the indigenous peoples of the area that is the republic of Azerbaijan have been under oppression by non-indigenous Turks: E.g. they are not allowed to speak their native tongues, not allowed to identify themselves e.g. as Talysh, etc.
Forcible Turkification.

I think the proposals by poster "SeparateNations" could work and is better than our current state of affairs. But the central government in D.C. would need to willingly ceded some power to regions and states and we truly have a drunk on power monster on our hands, so I don't envision that. If the founders could have seen what they birthed I think they would have surrendered to the British.

It could take 5-10 years to hammer out details and effect population transfers around the nation, just compensation for property, etc. In the interim people should have freedom of association when it comes to neighborhoods, schools and most workplaces. This would defuse racial tensions and prevent violence while things are being sorted out.

Too many innocent civilians get caught in the cross fire in the event of a hot civil war so I'd rather do things the easy way. Civil war may seem romantic in the abstract but the reality is brutal, bloody and ugly without exception. There would be a lot of heartbreak and grief.

Since our central government refuses to deal with domestic problems honestly and in good faith I fear the worst could come to pass in the future.

But the central government in D.C. would need to willingly ceded some power to regions and states and we truly have a drunk on power monster on our hands, so I don’t envision that. If the founders could have seen what they birthed I think they would have surrendered to the British.

Americans — and much of the rest of the world — have been deprived of one of the most important means of establishing and maintaining a free society, namely, federalism or states’ rights. It is not just an accident that states’ rights have either been relegated to the memory hole, or denigrated as a tool of racists and other miscreants. The Jeffersonian states’-rights tradition was — and is — the key to understanding why Thomas Jefferson believed that the best government is that which governs least, and that a limited constitutional government was indeed possible.

What Are “States’ Rights”?

The idea of states’ rights is most closely associated with the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and his political heirs. Jefferson himself never entertained the idea that “states have rights,” as some of the less educated critics of the idea have claimed. Of course “states” don’t have rights. The essence of Jefferson’s idea is that if the people are to be the masters rather than the servants of their own government, then they must have some vehicle with which to control that government. That vehicle, in the Jeffersonian tradition, is political communities organized at the state and local level. That is how the people were to monitor, control, discipline, and even abolish, if need be, their own government.

It was Jefferson, after all, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that government’s just powers arise only from the consent of the people,

and that whenever the government becomes abusive of the peoples’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the peoples’ duty to abolish that government and replace it with another one.

And how were the people to achieve this?

They were to achieve it just as they did when they adopted the Constitution, through political conventions organized by the states.

The states, after all, were considered to be independent nations just as England and France were independent nations. The Declaration of Independence referred to them specifically as “free and independent,” independent enough to raise taxes and wage war, just like any other state.

That is why the political heirs of Thomas Jefferson, mid-19th-century Southern Democrats, held statewide political conventions (and popular votes) to decide whether or not they would continue to remain in then voluntary union of the Founding Fathers. Article 7 of the US Constitution explained that the states could join (or not join) the union according to votes taken at state political conventions by representatives of the people (not state legislatures) and, in keeping with the words of the Declaration, they also had a right to vote to secede from the government and create a new one.

Jefferson was not only the author of America’s Declaration of Secession from the British Empire; he championed the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws with his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,

[Jefferson] also believed that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – – -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. . . .

was the cornerstone of the entire document. He was a “strict constructionist” who believed that every effort should be made to force the central government to possess only those powers delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8. Delegated to it by the states, that is. All others are reserved to the states, respectively, and to the people under the Tenth Amendment.

The idea was always that

it is easier for the people to keep an eye on and control politicians the closer they are to them, and
a decentralized system of government consisting of numerous states provided American citizens with an escape hatch from tyrannical governments.
If Massachusetts created a state theocracy, for example, those who did not want to live under the thumb of Puritan theocrats could escape to Virginia or some other state.

In other words, The People would voluntarily create the regions that conformed to their preferences, by voting with their feet.

Secession or the threat of secession was always intended as a possible means of maintaining both the American union and constitutional government. The idea was that the central government would likely only propose constitutional laws if it understood that unconstitutional laws could lead to secession or nullification. Nullification and the threat thereof were intended to have the same effect.

Lord Acton and Robert E. Lee shared that perspective:

Lord Acton, wrote the following letter to General Robert E. Lee on November 4, 1866, seventeen months after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox:

I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic [i.e., the Confederate Constitution] have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly an wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

What Lord Acton is saying here is that he considered it to be a disaster for the entire world that the right of secession was abolished by the war.The 20th century would become the century of consolidated, monopolistic government in Russia, Germany, the United States, and elsewhere, and it was a disaster for humanity. Had the rights of secession and nullification remained in place, and had slavery been abolished peacefully as it had been everywhere else in the world, America would have been a counterexample of decentralized, limited government for the rest of the world.

General Lee understood this. In his December 15, 1866, response to Lord Acton he wrote,

While I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. . . .

This is all a part of America’s lost history. The advocates of centralization who were the victors in the War to Prevent Southern Independence rewrote the history of America, as the victors in war always do.

IN CONTRAST, Abraham Lincoln held, and stated in his inaugural address March 4, 1861:

” I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Notice how Lincoln emphasizes the supreme importance of the Central Authority, and its right, even duty, to impose its will upon the People, and the individual states.

That is, Lincoln’s perspective exactly upended the intention of the founders/Thomas Jefferson, for whom the sovereign will of the People, and of their local communities/states, was supreme.

History has borne out that Jefferson’s view was both the intended view, and the perspective that would have distinguished the US Constitutional system from mere majoritarian democracy, and the view that would have prevented the bloat of power that has enabled the US central gov. to wage war recklessly and destructively.

Thank God, we still don't have Londonistan and no Islamist-Supremacist mayor of a large city in US: the anti-Christian, anti-West Sharia Sadiq Khan, voted in by Islamized, prostrated British voters.

Americans still maintain some cojones and resist Islamization.
British have completely surrendered to Islamists and have given up.

The land of Magna Carta had to come to this?

Are you sure?

If the U.S. didn’t exist then we couldn’t have come to Britain’s aid in WWII and they would have been defeated or at least laid low by Germany. So Europe would have remained sane and not gone so wacko liberal which would have rubbed off on the U.K. and it wouldn’t be ruled by those who hate their own people and want to reforge their nation with Muslims and Africans.

Try re-reading his article. The closest he comes to stating that non-whites could theoretically be included in "our posterity" is his mention of "half breeds from Indian-settler matches". Again, you're like a SCOTUS justice who sees and reads things in written content that don't exist.

Another patently false statement on your part. These attitudes changed gradually over time......

False and everyone but hard headed ideologues and dissemblers like Corvy seem to know it. The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution from above in the form of onerous laws that abrogated freedom of association and the threat of brute government force for non-compliance as well as TV shows like Archie Bunker that depict working class whites with illiberal attitudes on race as ignorant and anachronistic. Sure, outwardly it appears white attitudes have changed but in most cases their hearts aren't in it and most prefer to retire in the evenings to the least diverse neighborhoods they can find and afford.

You can find countless articles bemoaning how America is still largely segregated even after destroying the Constitution and turning the nation upside down and inside out since 1965. Most people still prefer the company of their own kind. Only Corvy likes to pretend otherwise.

Fake News Story.

Ok, so if white congressman and senators start advocating for white racial interests like black, Latino and Jewish politicians advocate for their people there won't be a media uproar and charges of white supremacy and neo-Nazism? Remember the fallout when Rand Paul correctly said that civil rights legislation was unconstitutional? Or how about Katie McHugh who was recently fired from Breitbart.com for stating that there would be no terrorism if Muslims were disallowed from coming to the West? Or how about the assistant district attorney who attended an American Renaissance conference around 2008 and got outed by the Jewish busybodies at the SPLC and subsequently fired? The haven't outed anyone from NAACP or La Raza and in fact morally support those groups. The SPLC only attacks white people who don't hate themselves.

The list is endless. You're just afraid to look since you'll be forced to fall on your own sword.

Since you're a true blue believer in racial diversity tell us about your racially diverse and vibrant neighborhood and how it's enriched your life. I'll bet your hood is 25% white, 25% black, 25% Latino and 25% Asian since you're so committed to diversity. You probably have cook outs, block parties and interracial orgies all the time.

“Try re-reading his article. The closest he comes to stating that non-whites could theoretically be included in “our posterity” is his mention of “half breeds from Indian-settler matches”. Again, you’re like a SCOTUS justice who sees and reads things in written content that don’t exist.”

Man, you are dense. I had already acknowledged John Jay’s attitudes toward exclusion of non-Europeans as potential citizens of the United States. His writing reflected how people felt at that particular moment. However, his position was rendered impotent when the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the immigration criteria AND when the constitutional amendment process was put in place to enable citizenship rights to be afforded to groups previously denied.

“False and everyone but hard headed ideologues and dissemblers like Corvy seem to know it. The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution from above in the form of onerous laws that abrogated freedom of association and the threat of brute government force for non-compliance as well as TV shows like Archie Bunker that depict working class whites with illiberal attitudes on race as ignorant and anachronistic. Sure, outwardly it appears white attitudes have changed but in most cases their hearts aren’t in it and most prefer to retire in the evenings to the least diverse neighborhoods they can find and afford.”

Corrected for accuracy –> The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution due to internal and external forces that happened over the course of a century.

Pray tell, were not those fine southern folks denied their freedom of association who preferred to integrate with the blacks by sanction of custom and law? Were they not denied their rights by way of “onerous laws” and “the threat of brute government force”?

“You can find countless articles bemoaning how America is still largely segregated even after destroying the Constitution and turning the nation upside down and inside out since 1965. “

You can find countless articles bemoaning how America has successfully been moving toward integration since 1965, when constitutional rights were once again protected by the will of the people.

“Most people still prefer the company of their own kind.”

Most people YOU know prefer the company of their own kind.

“Ok, so if white congressman and senators start advocating for white racial interests like black, Latino and Jewish politicians advocate for their people there won’t be a media uproar and charges of white supremacy and neo-Nazism?”

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

“Remember the fallout when Rand Paul correctly said that civil rights legislation was unconstitutional?”

He was speaking from a states rights and property rights perspective as a libertarian.
And he was other than correct.

“Or how about Katie McHugh who was recently fired from Breitbart.com for stating that there would be no terrorism if Muslims were disallowed from coming to the West?”
“Or how about the assistant district attorney who attended an American Renaissance conference around 2008 and got outed by the Jewish busybodies at the SPLC and subsequently fired?”

In both cases, one in this high profile position has to weigh the potential consequences, positive and negative, of their actions. They are held to different standards when in these capacities.

“Since you’re a true blue believer in racial diversity tell us about your racially diverse and vibrant neighborhood and how it’s enriched your life. I’ll bet your hood is 25% white, 25% black, 25% Latino and 25% Asian since you’re so committed to diversity. You probably have cook outs, block parties and interracial orgies all the time.”

Sans the orgies, I do live in a “vibrant” neighborhood. Several black families, along with a mix of Eastern Europeans, Filipinos, and (gasp) Middle Easterners. We need not worry about lil’ Abdul throwing Molotov cocktails or lil’ Tyrone jacking cars because we are civil to one another.

It comes down to social class–my neighbors live where they do because they can afford it, and they do not want to deal with the “unsavory” element. The more money one has, the more likely one will want to be safe and secure. Wealthy people regardless of race share that sentiment.

“I think the proposals by poster “SeparateNations” could work and is better than our current state of affairs.”

No.

“It could take 5-10 years to hammer out details and effect population transfers around the nation, just compensation for property, etc.”

How in the world will Congress “hammer out details” when they repeatedly have difficulty getting things done now? Moreover, why would people want to move from their current places of residence? Do they not have freedom of association to remain there? Furthermore, how does one even begin to offer this compensation in light of our debt? What would be considered “fair and just compensation”?

“In the interim people should have freedom of association when it comes to neighborhoods, schools and most workplaces. This would defuse racial tensions and prevent violence while things are being sorted out.”

Today, people are free to move to a neighborhood they desire, attend schools of their choice, and decide where to work. But, according to Edmund Burke, “Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself, and he has right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour.” For example, Jim Crow laws showed exactly the impact they had on white-black achievement gaps in education and its resonating impact. Southern states made other than an honest effort during Reconstruction to ensure a quality education for newly freed slaves. Rather, blacks endured decades of neglect when it came to funding, quality of instruction, and infrastructure. Furthermore, 30 states by 1900 had compulsory education laws, with only four southern states obliging. While in those southern states that lacked mandatory schooling and offered blacks and whites an education, clearly the resources were other than equal for blacks, a clear violation of Plessy. Thus, this notion that some people have regarding freedom of association as being unfettered is utter nonsense. Clearly, this situation shows the devastating effects when men trespass upon others for their own favors.

We need not worry about lil’ Abdul throwing Molotov cocktails or lil’ Tyrone jacking cars because we are civil to one another.

Watch your back - that's just Abdul doing taqiyyah until Tyrone converts. Once that happens they will burn down your house after raping your daughter...and possibly your cat. You remember the old adage - Muslim man speaks with forked tongue...or something like that or other.

Man, you are dense. I had already acknowledged John Jay’s attitudes toward exclusion of non-Europeans as potential citizens of the United States

Jesus, will you make up your mind? If anyone's dense it's you for relying on the opinions of a science fiction writer as the only word on this subject.

However, his position was rendered impotent when the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the immigration criteria AND when the constitutional amendment process....

And it took almost 200 years and a renegade Congress responding to Jewish lobbying efforts to radically change immigration laws in favor of the third world. They weren't responding to the "changing attitudes" of the electorate as you erroneously and cynically claim. And the 14th amendment was illegally ratified...a fact that your science fiction writer didn't address. http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

I'll give Kratman some credit since he didn't claim the 14th amendment applies to illegal aliens.

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

Then we must sever diplomatic relations with Israel and withhold four billion dollars in foreign aid since Israel is a Jewish ethnostate that ruthlessly discriminates against non-Jews. Right, (((Corvy)))? It's time to forcibly integrate Israeli society then 30-40 years hence act like it was a natural occurrence with no duress.

In both cases, one in this high profile position has to weigh the potential consequences, positive and negative, of their actions.

Oh, so according to your previous posts, non-whites, high profile or otherwise, have wide latitude to hate on white people and their history under the 1st amendment. But when white people respond in kind they better be ready to face the dire consequences. Looks like we're not all equal under the law anymore. White is the new black. Such is life in Jew run Amurica.

Sans the orgies, I do live in a “vibrant” neighborhood.

Not vibrant enough. In order to take you seriously I want you to lobby for section 8 blacks and Latinos on your street then we'll see how true you are to your lofty principles. Many white communities didn't get a choice and neither should you.

It comes down to social class–my neighbors live where they do because they can afford it, and they do not want to deal with the “unsavory” element.

Whoa, Corvy sounds like......a closet racist who's speaking in code.

No.

Yes.

How in the world will Congress “hammer out details” when they repeatedly have difficulty getting things done now?

If you had read my comments carefully I said that the imperial Congress will need to cede some of its power to regions and states and let them sort things out. A sweeping decentralization of power is a prerequisite and would make it harder for the various Jewish and other racial lobbies to strong arm and influence a corrupt national Congress that's irretrievably out of touch with the nation it governs.

The glorious multicultural experiment has failed except in your own imagination and must now come to an end.

“Try re-reading his article. The closest he comes to stating that non-whites could theoretically be included in “our posterity” is his mention of “half breeds from Indian-settler matches”. Again, you’re like a SCOTUS justice who sees and reads things in written content that don’t exist.”

Man, you are dense. I had already acknowledged John Jay’s attitudes toward exclusion of non-Europeans as potential citizens of the United States. His writing reflected how people felt at that particular moment. However, his position was rendered impotent when the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the immigration criteria AND when the constitutional amendment process was put in place to enable citizenship rights to be afforded to groups previously denied.

“False and everyone but hard headed ideologues and dissemblers like Corvy seem to know it. The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution from above in the form of onerous laws that abrogated freedom of association and the threat of brute government force for non-compliance as well as TV shows like Archie Bunker that depict working class whites with illiberal attitudes on race as ignorant and anachronistic. Sure, outwardly it appears white attitudes have changed but in most cases their hearts aren’t in it and most prefer to retire in the evenings to the least diverse neighborhoods they can find and afford.”

Corrected for accuracy --> The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution due to internal and external forces that happened over the course of a century.

Pray tell, were not those fine southern folks denied their freedom of association who preferred to integrate with the blacks by sanction of custom and law? Were they not denied their rights by way of “onerous laws” and “the threat of brute government force”?

“You can find countless articles bemoaning how America is still largely segregated even after destroying the Constitution and turning the nation upside down and inside out since 1965. “

You can find countless articles bemoaning how America has successfully been moving toward integration since 1965, when constitutional rights were once again protected by the will of the people.

“Most people still prefer the company of their own kind.”

Most people YOU know prefer the company of their own kind.

“Ok, so if white congressman and senators start advocating for white racial interests like black, Latino and Jewish politicians advocate for their people there won’t be a media uproar and charges of white supremacy and neo-Nazism?”

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

“Remember the fallout when Rand Paul correctly said that civil rights legislation was unconstitutional?”

He was speaking from a states rights and property rights perspective as a libertarian.And he was other than correct.

“Or how about Katie McHugh who was recently fired from Breitbart.com for stating that there would be no terrorism if Muslims were disallowed from coming to the West?”“Or how about the assistant district attorney who attended an American Renaissance conference around 2008 and got outed by the Jewish busybodies at the SPLC and subsequently fired?”

In both cases, one in this high profile position has to weigh the potential consequences, positive and negative, of their actions. They are held to different standards when in these capacities.

“Since you’re a true blue believer in racial diversity tell us about your racially diverse and vibrant neighborhood and how it’s enriched your life. I’ll bet your hood is 25% white, 25% black, 25% Latino and 25% Asian since you’re so committed to diversity. You probably have cook outs, block parties and interracial orgies all the time.”

Sans the orgies, I do live in a “vibrant” neighborhood. Several black families, along with a mix of Eastern Europeans, Filipinos, and (gasp) Middle Easterners. We need not worry about lil’ Abdul throwing Molotov cocktails or lil’ Tyrone jacking cars because we are civil to one another.

It comes down to social class--my neighbors live where they do because they can afford it, and they do not want to deal with the “unsavory” element. The more money one has, the more likely one will want to be safe and secure. Wealthy people regardless of race share that sentiment.

"I think the proposals by poster “SeparateNations” could work and is better than our current state of affairs."

No.

"It could take 5-10 years to hammer out details and effect population transfers around the nation, just compensation for property, etc."

How in the world will Congress "hammer out details" when they repeatedly have difficulty getting things done now? Moreover, why would people want to move from their current places of residence? Do they not have freedom of association to remain there? Furthermore, how does one even begin to offer this compensation in light of our debt? What would be considered "fair and just compensation"?

"In the interim people should have freedom of association when it comes to neighborhoods, schools and most workplaces. This would defuse racial tensions and prevent violence while things are being sorted out."

Today, people are free to move to a neighborhood they desire, attend schools of their choice, and decide where to work. But, according to Edmund Burke, “Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself, and he has right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour.” For example, Jim Crow laws showed exactly the impact they had on white-black achievement gaps in education and its resonating impact. Southern states made other than an honest effort during Reconstruction to ensure a quality education for newly freed slaves. Rather, blacks endured decades of neglect when it came to funding, quality of instruction, and infrastructure. Furthermore, 30 states by 1900 had compulsory education laws, with only four southern states obliging. While in those southern states that lacked mandatory schooling and offered blacks and whites an education, clearly the resources were other than equal for blacks, a clear violation of Plessy. Thus, this notion that some people have regarding freedom of association as being unfettered is utter nonsense. Clearly, this situation shows the devastating effects when men trespass upon others for their own favors.

We need not worry about lil’ Abdul throwing Molotov cocktails or lil’ Tyrone jacking cars because we are civil to one another.

Watch your back – that’s just Abdul doing taqiyyah until Tyrone converts. Once that happens they will burn down your house after raping your daughter…and possibly your cat. You remember the old adage – Muslim man speaks with forked tongue…or something like that or other.

A big part of the problem in America (and the rest of the west) is that someone named "Fareed Zakaria" is not only living in America, but earning a living commenting upon it.

“Soon after Trump’s inauguration, FDD’s CEO, Mark Dubowitz, submitted a seven-page Iran policy memo to Trump’s National Security Council. The memo — which was circulated inside the Trump White House and recently obtained by POLITICO — included a discussion of ways to foment popular unrest with the goal of establishing a “free and democratic” Iran. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/trump-iran-foreign-policy-regime-change-239930

Dubowitz ( Background- He also served as director of international business development for DoubleClick, later acquired by Internet giant Google.

Business, investment and the law are major milestones in Dubowitz’s life journey. He was born in Johannesburg and grew up in Canada, completing his law degree in Toronto and graduating with honors with a master’s in international public policy from Johns Hopkins University. On top of that, he also studied in Jerusalem’s Hebrew University and in Paris0

utilizes any available means. For example, he may arrive at a meeting in Canada’s Prime Minister Office, and on the way there stop by a local TV studio and bluntly urge Ottawa to shift from talk to action.

One is amazed to discover that the US, a superpower boasting 16 intelligence agencies, nonetheless relies on the information and ideas of a man who heads an independent organization

A senior aide in an important Congressional committee told Ynet that “nobody in this town dedicates so much time and effort to one issue. Mark and his research team do an excellent job. If we have a question, they are the first ones we turn to.” They come to us with information and with ideas. In order to pass legislation on the matter, we need good ideas,” he said

“Try re-reading his article. The closest he comes to stating that non-whites could theoretically be included in “our posterity” is his mention of “half breeds from Indian-settler matches”. Again, you’re like a SCOTUS justice who sees and reads things in written content that don’t exist.”

Man, you are dense. I had already acknowledged John Jay’s attitudes toward exclusion of non-Europeans as potential citizens of the United States. His writing reflected how people felt at that particular moment. However, his position was rendered impotent when the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the immigration criteria AND when the constitutional amendment process was put in place to enable citizenship rights to be afforded to groups previously denied.

“False and everyone but hard headed ideologues and dissemblers like Corvy seem to know it. The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution from above in the form of onerous laws that abrogated freedom of association and the threat of brute government force for non-compliance as well as TV shows like Archie Bunker that depict working class whites with illiberal attitudes on race as ignorant and anachronistic. Sure, outwardly it appears white attitudes have changed but in most cases their hearts aren’t in it and most prefer to retire in the evenings to the least diverse neighborhoods they can find and afford.”

Corrected for accuracy --> The changing of white racial attitudes was a revolution due to internal and external forces that happened over the course of a century.

Pray tell, were not those fine southern folks denied their freedom of association who preferred to integrate with the blacks by sanction of custom and law? Were they not denied their rights by way of “onerous laws” and “the threat of brute government force”?

“You can find countless articles bemoaning how America is still largely segregated even after destroying the Constitution and turning the nation upside down and inside out since 1965. “

You can find countless articles bemoaning how America has successfully been moving toward integration since 1965, when constitutional rights were once again protected by the will of the people.

“Most people still prefer the company of their own kind.”

Most people YOU know prefer the company of their own kind.

“Ok, so if white congressman and senators start advocating for white racial interests like black, Latino and Jewish politicians advocate for their people there won’t be a media uproar and charges of white supremacy and neo-Nazism?”

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

“Remember the fallout when Rand Paul correctly said that civil rights legislation was unconstitutional?”

He was speaking from a states rights and property rights perspective as a libertarian.And he was other than correct.

“Or how about Katie McHugh who was recently fired from Breitbart.com for stating that there would be no terrorism if Muslims were disallowed from coming to the West?”“Or how about the assistant district attorney who attended an American Renaissance conference around 2008 and got outed by the Jewish busybodies at the SPLC and subsequently fired?”

In both cases, one in this high profile position has to weigh the potential consequences, positive and negative, of their actions. They are held to different standards when in these capacities.

“Since you’re a true blue believer in racial diversity tell us about your racially diverse and vibrant neighborhood and how it’s enriched your life. I’ll bet your hood is 25% white, 25% black, 25% Latino and 25% Asian since you’re so committed to diversity. You probably have cook outs, block parties and interracial orgies all the time.”

Sans the orgies, I do live in a “vibrant” neighborhood. Several black families, along with a mix of Eastern Europeans, Filipinos, and (gasp) Middle Easterners. We need not worry about lil’ Abdul throwing Molotov cocktails or lil’ Tyrone jacking cars because we are civil to one another.

It comes down to social class--my neighbors live where they do because they can afford it, and they do not want to deal with the “unsavory” element. The more money one has, the more likely one will want to be safe and secure. Wealthy people regardless of race share that sentiment.

"I think the proposals by poster “SeparateNations” could work and is better than our current state of affairs."

No.

"It could take 5-10 years to hammer out details and effect population transfers around the nation, just compensation for property, etc."

How in the world will Congress "hammer out details" when they repeatedly have difficulty getting things done now? Moreover, why would people want to move from their current places of residence? Do they not have freedom of association to remain there? Furthermore, how does one even begin to offer this compensation in light of our debt? What would be considered "fair and just compensation"?

"In the interim people should have freedom of association when it comes to neighborhoods, schools and most workplaces. This would defuse racial tensions and prevent violence while things are being sorted out."

Today, people are free to move to a neighborhood they desire, attend schools of their choice, and decide where to work. But, according to Edmund Burke, “Whatever each man can separately do, without trespassing upon others, he has a right to do for himself, and he has right to a fair portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour.” For example, Jim Crow laws showed exactly the impact they had on white-black achievement gaps in education and its resonating impact. Southern states made other than an honest effort during Reconstruction to ensure a quality education for newly freed slaves. Rather, blacks endured decades of neglect when it came to funding, quality of instruction, and infrastructure. Furthermore, 30 states by 1900 had compulsory education laws, with only four southern states obliging. While in those southern states that lacked mandatory schooling and offered blacks and whites an education, clearly the resources were other than equal for blacks, a clear violation of Plessy. Thus, this notion that some people have regarding freedom of association as being unfettered is utter nonsense. Clearly, this situation shows the devastating effects when men trespass upon others for their own favors.

Man, you are dense. I had already acknowledged John Jay’s attitudes toward exclusion of non-Europeans as potential citizens of the United States

Jesus, will you make up your mind? If anyone’s dense it’s you for relying on the opinions of a science fiction writer as the only word on this subject.

However, his position was rendered impotent when the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the immigration criteria AND when the constitutional amendment process….

And it took almost 200 years and a renegade Congress responding to Jewish lobbying efforts to radically change immigration laws in favor of the third world. They weren’t responding to the “changing attitudes” of the electorate as you erroneously and cynically claim. And the 14th amendment was illegally ratified…a fact that your science fiction writer didn’t address.

I’ll give Kratman some credit since he didn’t claim the 14th amendment applies to illegal aliens.

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

Then we must sever diplomatic relations with Israel and withhold four billion dollars in foreign aid since Israel is a Jewish ethnostate that ruthlessly discriminates against non-Jews. Right, (((Corvy)))? It’s time to forcibly integrate Israeli society then 30-40 years hence act like it was a natural occurrence with no duress.

In both cases, one in this high profile position has to weigh the potential consequences, positive and negative, of their actions.

Oh, so according to your previous posts, non-whites, high profile or otherwise, have wide latitude to hate on white people and their history under the 1st amendment. But when white people respond in kind they better be ready to face the dire consequences. Looks like we’re not all equal under the law anymore. White is the new black. Such is life in Jew run Amurica.

Sans the orgies, I do live in a “vibrant” neighborhood.

Not vibrant enough. In order to take you seriously I want you to lobby for section 8 blacks and Latinos on your street then we’ll see how true you are to your lofty principles. Many white communities didn’t get a choice and neither should you.

It comes down to social class–my neighbors live where they do because they can afford it, and they do not want to deal with the “unsavory” element.

Whoa, Corvy sounds like……a closet racist who’s speaking in code.

No.

Yes.

How in the world will Congress “hammer out details” when they repeatedly have difficulty getting things done now?

If you had read my comments carefully I said that the imperial Congress will need to cede some of its power to regions and states and let them sort things out. A sweeping decentralization of power is a prerequisite and would make it harder for the various Jewish and other racial lobbies to strong arm and influence a corrupt national Congress that’s irretrievably out of touch with the nation it governs.

The glorious multicultural experiment has failed except in your own imagination and must now come to an end.

"Jesus, will you make up your mind? If anyone’s dense it’s you for relying on the opinions of a science fiction writer as the only word on this subject."

I can't help that you have a reading comprehension problem.

"And it took almost 200 years and a renegade Congress responding to Jewish lobbying efforts to radically change immigration laws in favor of the third world."

Corrected for accuracy --> Over the course of 200 years, Congress, through the will of the people--which included whites and non-whites, Christians and non-Christians--changed immigration law several times, and put forth constitutional amendments.

"They weren’t responding to the “changing attitudes” of the electorate as you erroneously and cynically claim. And the 14th amendment was illegally ratified…a fact that your science fiction writer didn’t address."

And, for the love of God, the electorate over several decades did naturally change their attitudes regarding race, as well as ethnicity and gender. You are dead wrong here. Face reality and move on.

"Then we must sever diplomatic relations with Israel and withhold four billion dollars in foreign aid since Israel is a Jewish ethnostate that ruthlessly discriminates against non-Jews. Right, (((Corvy)))? It’s time to forcibly integrate Israeli society then 30-40 years hence act like it was a natural occurrence with no duress."

Jews are not a race. Now, I would agree that Israel ought to be held accountable for their discrimination against non-Jews. There is merit to the consequences you offer.

"Not vibrant enough. In order to take you seriously I want you to lobby for section 8 blacks and Latinos on your street then we’ll see how true you are to your lofty principles. Many white communities didn’t get a choice and neither should you."

The train is fine, KenH, the train is fine.

"Whoa, Corvy sounds like……a closet racist who’s speaking in code."

Don't you realize that racism and sexism don't exist anymore, that they are merely co-opted phrases used by the Left and the Right for their own purposes? Where you been?

"If you had read my comments carefully I said that the imperial Congress will need to cede some of its power to regions and states and let them sort things out."

Not going to happen. Next...

"A sweeping decentralization of power is a prerequisite and would make it harder for the various Jewish and other racial lobbies to strong arm and influence a corrupt national Congress that’s irretrievably out of touch with the nation it governs."

You have a Jewish fixation. Please seek professional help.

"The glorious multicultural experiment has failed except in your own imagination and must now come to an end."

No, it is actually embedded in our society. Multiculturalism is not coming to an end. Again, deal with reality, you will be much happier!

Man, you are dense. I had already acknowledged John Jay’s attitudes toward exclusion of non-Europeans as potential citizens of the United States

Jesus, will you make up your mind? If anyone's dense it's you for relying on the opinions of a science fiction writer as the only word on this subject.

However, his position was rendered impotent when the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the immigration criteria AND when the constitutional amendment process....

And it took almost 200 years and a renegade Congress responding to Jewish lobbying efforts to radically change immigration laws in favor of the third world. They weren't responding to the "changing attitudes" of the electorate as you erroneously and cynically claim. And the 14th amendment was illegally ratified...a fact that your science fiction writer didn't address. http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

I'll give Kratman some credit since he didn't claim the 14th amendment applies to illegal aliens.

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

Then we must sever diplomatic relations with Israel and withhold four billion dollars in foreign aid since Israel is a Jewish ethnostate that ruthlessly discriminates against non-Jews. Right, (((Corvy)))? It's time to forcibly integrate Israeli society then 30-40 years hence act like it was a natural occurrence with no duress.

In both cases, one in this high profile position has to weigh the potential consequences, positive and negative, of their actions.

Oh, so according to your previous posts, non-whites, high profile or otherwise, have wide latitude to hate on white people and their history under the 1st amendment. But when white people respond in kind they better be ready to face the dire consequences. Looks like we're not all equal under the law anymore. White is the new black. Such is life in Jew run Amurica.

Sans the orgies, I do live in a “vibrant” neighborhood.

Not vibrant enough. In order to take you seriously I want you to lobby for section 8 blacks and Latinos on your street then we'll see how true you are to your lofty principles. Many white communities didn't get a choice and neither should you.

It comes down to social class–my neighbors live where they do because they can afford it, and they do not want to deal with the “unsavory” element.

Whoa, Corvy sounds like......a closet racist who's speaking in code.

No.

Yes.

How in the world will Congress “hammer out details” when they repeatedly have difficulty getting things done now?

If you had read my comments carefully I said that the imperial Congress will need to cede some of its power to regions and states and let them sort things out. A sweeping decentralization of power is a prerequisite and would make it harder for the various Jewish and other racial lobbies to strong arm and influence a corrupt national Congress that's irretrievably out of touch with the nation it governs.

The glorious multicultural experiment has failed except in your own imagination and must now come to an end.

“Jesus, will you make up your mind? If anyone’s dense it’s you for relying on the opinions of a science fiction writer as the only word on this subject.”

I can’t help that you have a reading comprehension problem.

“And it took almost 200 years and a renegade Congress responding to Jewish lobbying efforts to radically change immigration laws in favor of the third world.”

Corrected for accuracy –> Over the course of 200 years, Congress, through the will of the people–which included whites and non-whites, Christians and non-Christians–changed immigration law several times, and put forth constitutional amendments.

“They weren’t responding to the “changing attitudes” of the electorate as you erroneously and cynically claim. And the 14th amendment was illegally ratified…a fact that your science fiction writer didn’t address.”

And, for the love of God, the electorate over several decades did naturally change their attitudes regarding race, as well as ethnicity and gender. You are dead wrong here. Face reality and move on.

“Then we must sever diplomatic relations with Israel and withhold four billion dollars in foreign aid since Israel is a Jewish ethnostate that ruthlessly discriminates against non-Jews. Right, (((Corvy)))? It’s time to forcibly integrate Israeli society then 30-40 years hence act like it was a natural occurrence with no duress.”

Jews are not a race. Now, I would agree that Israel ought to be held accountable for their discrimination against non-Jews. There is merit to the consequences you offer.

“Not vibrant enough. In order to take you seriously I want you to lobby for section 8 blacks and Latinos on your street then we’ll see how true you are to your lofty principles. Many white communities didn’t get a choice and neither should you.”

The train is fine, KenH, the train is fine.

“Whoa, Corvy sounds like……a closet racist who’s speaking in code.”

Don’t you realize that racism and sexism don’t exist anymore, that they are merely co-opted phrases used by the Left and the Right for their own purposes? Where you been?

“If you had read my comments carefully I said that the imperial Congress will need to cede some of its power to regions and states and let them sort things out.”

Not going to happen. Next…

“A sweeping decentralization of power is a prerequisite and would make it harder for the various Jewish and other racial lobbies to strong arm and influence a corrupt national Congress that’s irretrievably out of touch with the nation it governs.”

You have a Jewish fixation. Please seek professional help.

“The glorious multicultural experiment has failed except in your own imagination and must now come to an end.”

No, it is actually embedded in our society. Multiculturalism is not coming to an end. Again, deal with reality, you will be much happier!

That is patently false. Refer to Mr. Kratman’s argument that I linked to. There are several definitions of “posterity”.

Kratman is a science fiction writer with an opinion. But I noticed he did not try to argue that the founders had all extant races in mind when they mentioned "our Posterity" in the preamble. Only that he believed it's inclusive of other European ethnic groups like the Irish.

At the time, these attitudes were generally accepted. However, attitudes change. It does not mean their initial thoughts on the matter are the standard bearer moving forward.

Attitudes didn't change naturally. It was the anti-racist propaganda that began to take root after WWII and intensified during the so called civil rights movement that liberalized white opinions on race. Public schools were integrated at gunpoint by Dwight Eisenhower and civil rights laws forbade discrimination in virtually every sector. Any white people who violate the dominant, cultural Marxist racial orthodoxy see their lives destroyed in "free" America. So the changing of white racial attitudes was engineered and is maintained by a system of rewards and punitive measures.

And the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to change that criteria by way of law or by way of constitutional amendment.

And it took almost 190 years from the Declaration of Independence until 1965 to allow immigration from nations that are racially and culturally alien to America's European racial stocks. Jewish lobbying played a central role in opening up our borders to the third world. Jew Emmanuel Celler was a co-sponsor of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965 that reversed long standing immigration policy favoring Europeans in favor of Latinos, Africans and Asians.

He had many addresses. Which one are you specifically referring to?

The one at the beginning of Buchanan's article. “One united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…” Race had not yet entered the lexicon but John Jay was referring to a distinct group of European people. Blacks and Indians spoke no or very little English and were dissimilar in manners, customs and religion to the English settlers and other European settlers. It's reasonable to assume that John Jay was referring specifically to the English settlers and English speaking Europeans. He didn't have blacks and Indians in mind as you suggested.

That only "Free, white persons" qualified for citizenship in the 1790 nationality act tells me the framers and the first Congresses were open to most non-English European ethnic groups. Otherwise it would have read "Free white persons of English descent". Don't forget that many English loyal to the Crown were expelled to Canada following the war, so the founders didn't think all Englishmen were equal.

Second, these groups are exercising their First Amendment right, so clearly they are up to the task.

They're using their first amendment rights to reveal themselves as highly antagonistic to the host people and their form of government. So they're up to the task of destroying and defacing what earlier generations of white Americans worked so hard to build. The late Sam Francis said that a society and civilization cannot exist apart from the genetic endowments of the people who created and sustain it and current events in America, U.S. and Europe are proving him correct.

Third, you do realize that Vox Day clearly stated that even non-English are not “up to the task”. How would you respond to his position?

Don't know and would need to read his article, but given that many non-English European ethnic groups have served with distinction in the armed forces, the government and private sector and have been loyal to the Constitution I'd say he's probably wrong. And a century of interbreeding between the English and other European ethnic groups has blurred ethnic distinctions.

“Time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted.”

Actually, I’m a retired infantry officer, recovering, which is to say non-practicing, attorney, and writer of military and political philosophy with a layer of science fiction electroplated on.

You might – or might not – like the other columns that were part of that series. I commend them to you.

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter